Dr S

For the sake of conversation I'd like to state a couple of observations and then make a giant leap founded on them.

Jane Goodall used to put out bunches of bananas to lure chimps into her camp so that she could observe them from the comfort of her tent. The Alpha Male would usually take most of the bananas. One day a Beta Male found an empty five-gallon tin can in camp. He went into a display, banging the can loudly as he ran screaming through the camp. This tremendously upset the rest of the group. After he stopped his racket all the other chimps wanted him to comfort them. Not only that but he got all the bananas. He had become a Pseudo-alpha.

Second observation: Researchers in Africa have found that the best places to look for fossils of early man is at the edge of where the forest used to be. Not because early man lived there, but because they were a food source of leopards who would drag them into trees to eat.

Jump to conclusion based on scanty evidence: Since early man was prey to leopards Darwinian evolution would favor those that were afraid of the big cats rather than those who said "here kitty, kitty, kitty." Leopards hunt at night while humans are diurnal. Eventually a fear of leopards prowling around in the dark would be instilled in the entire species of human. (Please notice the similarity of medieval Roman Catholic demons to leopards.) Just as the Beta-male chimp instilled fear of the empty tin can in his troop and then "saved" them from it Beta-male early humans could take advantage of the innate leopard fear. By telling their troop that there were leopards where there were none they could become the "saviors" by making the non-existent leopards go away. This would enhance their status and make them Pseudo-alphas, false silver backs.
The problem would come when humans were a bit more advanced than bonobos. That problem would be the inability of Pseudo-alphas to make actual leopards go away. The real Alpha-males would take it out of your hide if you didn't get rid of them as promised. The solution to the problem of real "devils" is a fake god. Now the Beta could claim to get rid of imaginary leopards (or any other imaginary problem) through the aid of the fake god. Real problems still would not be solved. But now that would be because the fake god was angry with the Alpha-male and not through any short comings of the Pseudo-alpha. Now instead of being punished for failure the Pseudo-alpha would be rewarded. The actual Alpha would make offerings to the fake god to stop it from being angry, which the Pseudo-alpha would benefit from.

So religion is the abuse of a completely Darwinian survival trait.

Ojuice5001

Uh, not so fast. You've simply assumed that there are no hostile spirits. It's easy to decide the origin of religion is something like this if you start by assuming it's false.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Ojuice5001 ]

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Ojuice5001 ]</p>

Demigawd

"you've simply assumed that there are no hostile spirits"

Like gin and rum?

Hurray, OJuice reinstated his "hostile spirits" post.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Demigawd ]

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Demigawd ]</p>

WJ

Dr!

Perhaps in your infinite wisdom you can put together this puzzle. How is it that our knowledge of the actual laws of nature have no advantage whatsoever on "Darwinian" survival in the jungle?

Dr S

(W) Perhaps in your infinite wisdom you can put together this puzzle.
(S) I see, a snide remark. When did I claim to have "infinite wisdom?" If I recall it is you who revels in claims of possessing knowledge that you have no way of having.

(W) How is it that our knowledge of the actual laws of nature have no advantage whatsoever on "Darwinian" survival in the jungle?
(S) You're saying that they don't? No drugs to prevent tropical disease? No hat to keep the sun off your head? No road and no car to drive through the jungle in?
Perhaps you have never been in a jungle. My job takes me there every so often. Our knowledge of the actual laws of nature gives us every survival advantage.

What has that to do with the unscrupulous invention of demons to raise ones social position in early human society?

WJ

Ok pretend doctor. Let's talk darwinism 101. All that crap you just articulated has nothing to do with basic evolution of the species. Do you even have a degree?

I don't mean to sound condescending but maybe this rhetorical question will give you a clue: How do both humans and birds dodge falling objects without knowledge of the mathematical laws of gravity?

I await your reply.

RogerLeeCooke

Right, and how do people and animals eat without knowing the theory of nutrition? Obviously there were ways of coping with such problems before science, but scientific knowledge of nutrition aids in survival nevertheless. The ability to analyze the world does give a technological survival advantage. The answer you got to the first question was right on the mark. You asked what survival advantage was given by our human knowledge, and you were told what the advantage was. Question-answer, it's a natural sequence.

Dr S

(W) All that crap you just articulated has nothing to do with basic evolution of the species.
(S) Boy you are ignorant aren't you? The science is called Animal Behavior, that's about as basic a natural science as you can get. All animals have evolved behaviors and group dynamics. Take sardines for an example. They swim in schools. Thousands of them all together. It enables them to survive in a sea full of bigger fish. They didn't think this strategy out, they didn't talk it over amongst themselves. The ones that turned left when everyone else turned right didn't get to pass their genes on. Darwin, plain and simple.

The more complicated the animal's brain the more involved it's group dynamic becomes.

Small children the world over are afraid of the dark and of "monsters" under their beds. Why should a tiny child in Paris and another in Honolulu have the same exact fears?
Evolved behavior that enhanced their ancestor's chances of survival.

(W)Do you even have a degree?
(S) Several.
Never mind a degree, have you ever even watched a science show on TV? It's not like this information isn't readily available to the general public. Watch TV, go to the zoo or a natural history museum, the information is there for the taking.

(W) I don't mean to sound condescending but maybe this rhetorical question will give you a clue: How do both humans and birds dodge falling objects without knowledge of the mathematical laws of gravity?
(S) Evolved behavior.
You weren't going to suggest some supernatural magic were you?
Don't tell me you actually think that devils are real?

Ojuice5001

But we must distinguish between theoretical and practical knowledge. Practical knowledge is forming a connection between two sensory phenomena. When you eat red mushrooms, you get sick. That has survival value.

Theoretical knowledge is scientific knowledge of things that we have never seen--for example, the chemical processes that occur in your stomach and make you sick. Until the advent of modern science, that had no survival value, yet the capacity for it existed. When you see this distinction, WJ's argument seems like a good one.

And while I'm at it, I will reproduce my "hostile spirits" post, in its original position. It really is a good point. I do believe that hostile spirits (don't like the word devil) are real.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Ojuice5001 ]</p>

Dr S

(OJ) You've simply assumed that there are no hostile spirits. It's easy to decide the origin of religion is something like this if you start by assuming it's false.
(S) The assumption would be that there are "hostile spirits."
Not considering them requires no assumptions what so ever.
We know that there were early humans and that they were a favorite snack for leopards because we have the remains of the leopards dinners with their tooth marks still in it.
We know the behavior patterns of modern day bonobos and as they are our nearest relatives do make an assumption that our ancestors behavior resembled theirs.
We know that throughout recorded history there have been scoundrels who have exploited people's fears and weaknesses for their personal gain.
We know that among all the other species of primates there are individuals who do the same.
We know that the term "spirit" comes from a misunderstanding of the human respiratory system before our culture had medical science.

Yes, it is pretty easy to speculate about the origin of religion once you've realized that it is false. It's only when you try to pass religion off as real that you run into trouble with all those thousands of gods and goddesses and genies and devils and leprechauns and such. It just doesn't hold up to examination.