Mr.Sunshine

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE,THE MORE THINGS REMAIN THE SAME.......We still have the human silver back.Now it is societys designated silver back,the police officer who arrives on the scene when 911 is called.

As for religion well it's a negative effect of the human species great intellect.We exist between a rock and a hard place,between the love of liveing and the certainty of eventual death.Thus we have religion.

Up until about three hundred years ago a person who did not except Theism would likely meet a untimely fate.Unbelievers were weeded out so the human gene pool was predominently that of minds which had the characteristics to except religious dogma without question.

Don't get me wrong,I'm not against religion.I feel it will always be a part of Society.Just an unavoidable idiosyncrasy of the human mind.My concern is fanatisism and my right to freedom from religion.

Dr S

As grand as it would be to have the lot of you think me some class of genius for thinking up this intelligence as a secondary sexual characteristic -I did not. The closest I came was thinking "Oh! I should have thought of that."
It's very much a "main stream" idea. So much so that it was fully covered in the TV series Evolution which PBS airs again, and again and again.

Dr S

(snatchbalance) 1. I guess you are saying that our hominid ancestors had "religion" prior to developing language capabilities?
(S) You could do it with a language no more advanced that that which chimpanzees use-under 100 "words"

(snatchbalance) 2. Would there have been survival merit in developing a protected class of "intellectuals"?
(S) NO. The problem with large intellects is the same problem that physical strength has. It is either a positive nor a negative
for the group depending on the individuals moral character. A physically strong individual can either be a hero or a bully.

These "intellectuals" of the protected priest class are taking advantage of the rest of the group solely for their personal gain. That would make them "bullys."

(snatchbalance) 3. Could such "intellectuals" have really been an asset to the group, as opposed to exploiting the group?
(S) Of course they could if they were "heroes" that is teachers, doctors, scientists-any of those who use their intellects to benefit the group. But what we are talking about are those who use their intellects to exploit the group.

(snatchbalance) 4. Prior to the, ever widening, cultural seperation between secular and religious leaders, could not such "priest/intellectuals" have played a real and vital role in the group dynamics?
(S) No, these are parasites, they do not benefit the group in the least.
They CLAIM that they benefit the group, but that's only part of the deception. They is nothing positive that they provide that wasn't already there without them.
Note that this group claims that they are the only source of "morals" that hold society together. Morals are, of course, nothing more than our species "group dynamic." However if you check today's newspapers and religious writing for as long as they existed (take special note of St Augustine and Epicurious) you find that this class of "intellectuals" has always attracted the morally bankrupt.

(snatchbalance) 5. Could this not have been a precursor to the common human phenomenon of the intelligent, as opposed to physical, taking leadership roles?
(S) As opposed to merely the big and strong as leaders? You may be on to something there.

(snatchbalance) 6. Why would such roles be reserved(predominately) for those that are both intellgent and experienced?
(S) Out of fear induced in the general group. You have to keep in mind that when we talk about "people" here we are talking about "Lucy" and her friends, not people as we know them. Fear would be a main motivating factor.

(snatchbalance) Are such traits, in and of themselves, worth preserving?
(S) When used for the benefit and not the exploitation of the group.
(snatchbalance) Creating a preistly cast may hae been one way of doing it.
(S) Meaning that the more intellectual Betas could pass on their genes. Interesting point. Evolutionarily speaking that might be a side benefit of an otherwise detrimental situation.

Dr S

(Mr.Sunshine) We exist between a rock and a hard place,between the love of liveing and the certainty of eventual death.Thus we have religion.
(S) Please note how much religion fosters a fear of death.
You didn't exist before you were born and that wasn't so bad, now was it?
Religion claims to have conquered death. With unbelievable gall they will stand next to a grave while the body is being lowered in and tell you that the corpse isn't the person and the person is still alive.

(Mr.Sunshine) Up until about three hundred years ago a person who did not except Theism would likely meet a untimely fate.
(S) Please note that if you told these pseudo-alphas that you didn't believe in the sun, or you didn't believe in mountains they would smile at you and shake their heads. But if you told them that you didn't believe in god they would murder you.
The reason-their self interest in power and money.

(Mr.Sunshine) I feel it will always be a part of Society. Just an unavoidable idiosyncrasy of the human mind.
(S) A parasite on society, is how I would put it.

(Mr.Sunshine) My concern is fanatisism and my right to freedom from religion.
(S) Freedom of religion is merely an enforced truce. Enforced by real-alphas (civil governments) to keep the different pseudo-alphas (religions) from murdering each other, which was their favorite pass time.

snatchbalance

DrS,

A couple of more thoughts, on your very interesting contention:

1. If you are basing your thougts on a single anecdote, the pot banging incident, I think you need some more data. But I think this is all for the sake of conversation, so, no bother.

2. From the pervasiness of religion I have to think there was a real evolutionary value to it; group comfort and cohesiveness, if nothing else. Fear is a powerfull motivator, but I think even a buch of lucies would catch on to a scam in short order.

sb

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

Dr S

1. If you are basing your thougts on a single anecdote, the pot banging incident, I think you need some more data...

That's just the one I chose to mention. It's of interest because it uses an alien object. Displays of mock aggression are very common in teenaged male chimps.
Sorry, I work with apes quite a bit and sometimes forget that "common knowledge" isn't very common at all outside the field.

2. From the pervasiness of religion I have to think there was a real evolutionary value to it; group comfort and cohesiveness, if nothing else.

The comfort and cohesivness are of great importance to "tribes" of primates-and these are supplied by the Alpha-males. They comfort the tribe from REAL dangers.
The pretend Alphas "comfort" the tribe only from false dangers. There is no benefit in that, except to the "pseudo."
The evolutionary value comes from the actual Alpha.
All the claims that the pseudo-alphas make--and they make a great many--of the benifits theysupply are false.
The needs are very real, and are part of our evolution. That's why we buy in to the pseudo-alpha claims. We are "programed" to trust (Faith) our Silverback. These fake silverbacks exploit this "faith."

As for "Lucy" being smart enough to figure out such a simple thing as the danger is false and the protection false, there are plenty of modern people on this very web site who will still give you a lengthy argument that they are real.

Lucy may have had a brain half the size of Walrus' but they hold the same opinion about pseudo-alphas.

Jobar

Dr. S, and all- I still find the topic very interesting, but the main thrust of the discussion has moved more into the realm of E/C than EoG, so I am moving it.