If religiosity had a biological basis, how would we know? What would the evidence look like? What would *mean*, "religious belief and practice inevitably emerge from humans because of the nature of human brains"?

a) demonstrate that humans with the same biological basis as all/most others have never NOT had 'religiosity.'
b) identify the biological structures (brain regions, for example) you think are responsible; find people who've had those regions damaged/removed. If they had "religiosity" before, and didn't after, your case is bolstered.
c) research if there are drugs that (temporarily) suppress the biological structures you think are responsible; if there are, conduct double-blind, valid studies using the drug, a placebo, and no drug; see if 'religiosity' changes.
d) control for any societal, cultural, and learned behavior influences *completely* in any studies.

That's a good start start.
You'd also have to much more clearly define 'religiosity' than is now the case. Some of the people you referred to earlier have a definition so broad as to be useless -- one that would include ANY "ritual" behavior, for example.

I should point out that I consider myself (and millions of people like me) sufficient evidence to reject your hypothesis.
I have zero 'religiosity.' My family and culture tried to instill it in me, but it never "took." My lack of it is intellectual, not biological.
I can intellectually decide I'm not hungry, but will still feel the biological urges of hunger. Same with thirst. Same with sexual desire. My intellect can choose to ignore the biological urges, but I still feel them. However, I feel absolutely no biological urge towards 'religiosity.'
And there goes the hypothesis.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2016 11:08PM by ificouldhietokolob.

You could also do it as a genetic study. In genetics the understanding of how a gene does something is seldom known. It is a statistical comparison of the observed phenotype and the genetic sequence.

The shear number of people who have some sort of spiritual belief strongly indicates (doesn't prove) a genetic link. It is probably best described as a genetic predisposition for belief. Of course actually testing this would be a very large undertaking. As the trait is likely highly complex a very large sample size would be needed.

"You could also do it as a genetic study. In genetics the understanding of how a gene does something is seldom known. It is a statistical comparison of the observed phenotype and the genetic sequence."

COMMENT: Note: First, you have to identify the concept of "gene" and "trait" is specific terms such that one (gene) can at least in principle be identified with the other (trait). Otherwise, any statistical analysis is vacuous, because you do not have any idea what the statistics mean, and particularly how a genetic component identifies with the "trait" in question. Note further that such a program has, to my knowledge, not been attempted. Instead, you have a loosely identified "trait" like "religiosity," and an assumed reductive, biological basis, which cannot specifically be identified. Then, you add an "adaptive" explanation, and presto, you have scientific nonsense.
_____________________________________

The shear number of people who have some sort of spiritual belief strongly indicates (doesn't prove) a genetic link. It is probably best described as a genetic predisposition for belief. Of course actually testing this would be a very large undertaking. As the trait is likely highly complex a very large sample size would be needed.

COMMENT: Absolutely wrong! It does not indicate anything other than that for each such person there are causal elements related to such "religiosity" (whatever that is supposed to mean scientifically), which may or may not involve a specifically defined and discrete, and common, biological or cultural causal basis. Social scientists are in the business of trying to explain such things, so they simply invent explanations, along with extremely poor research programs that attempt to support their predetermined conclusions.

Your comment here is unsupportable. To suggest that every commonality of human behavior is "best described" as "genetic predisposition" is scientifically unsupportable. If I am wrong, please support it! Start by defining "gene" and "spirituality." Then, propose a research program that might link the two biologically.

Okay, I guess I'll have to explain a bit more. My simple answer was a bit too simple.

Here is a general process of finding genes associated with a Trait.

1. Observation of a segregating phenotype. Religious belief clearly falls into this category. Any argument on this one is facetious.

2. Formulation of a experiment to measure the segregation. This is the part you are hung up on. For this question breaking it down to components is best. For example; do you believe in something spiritual? How many times per day do you think about spiritual/religious topics? Focus the questions to clearly defined but generic terms. Usually it takes time to fine tune the questions to ensure you are getting what you are asking for. This is a great time to start a fight amongst scientist. I have personally been in more than a few at this stage.

3. Performance of the study and collection of DNA. Running a panel of SNP markers would probably be best but SSR's could get the job done. I'd start with one every 5cM for the best mapping.

4. Statistical analysis of the phenotype versus the DNA mapping. Discovery of genes associated with the phenotype.

Please let me correct your understanding of genetics. Quantitative Trait Loci mapping or QTL mapping for short is what I was referring too. This is a technique that allows us to understand traits that have multiple genes. In QTL mapping higher sample numbers are required. The more genes associated with the Trait the higher the numbers are needed. Controlled breeding is normally used in this technique to reduce the sample size. This allows for some pretty fine mapping with only 200 offspring. I would not even attempt this type of study in humans without around 100,000 subjects.

The accuracy of the mapping also depends upon the heritability. Heritability can be calculated based upon the percentage of the parents with the Trait versus the offspring that exhibit it. In complexly inherited traits heritability is often lower than the more simply inherited ones. So parents and children should be included in the sample.

Here you go the basic layout for a study. Of course these are just thoughts rattling around. It would have to be a international effort and in many countries highly politically unpopular. It could be complete in a year or two but it is highly unlikely to ever be done.

Unless you control for social/cultural/familial factors, #2 isn't worth a damn.

Once that's done, I strongly suspect #3 and #4 would not show any results consistent with the hypothesis. Why do I suspect that? As I mentioned above: myself as evidence. My incredibly TBM brother who exhibits gobs of 'religiosity' and I are genetically damn near identical (we've had testing done -- he has one of my kidneys). Yet when it comes to 'religiosity,' we could hardly be further apart.

So, let's see if somebody does such a study, properly controlled, properly conducted. Until they do, and until a genetic component is identified by it, there is NO reason to assume a genetic component to 'religiosity,' and a great many reasons to reject such an hypothesis.

As Henry and I have both pointed out numerous times, the supposed ubiquitousness of 'religiosity' is no reason to assume a genetic basis.

A valid critique but not applicable in this instance. Environmental influences like cultural norms are sought to be normalized in the experimental design. These can also be approximated for in most statistical modeling.

Remember the only part of the equation we are looking for is the percentage of variation that is linked to a genomic region. The rest of the variation is noise, caused by environmental influences. There is always environmentmental influences in every genomic study.

For the example between you and your brother, in reality it shows nothing conclusive. Complex inherited traits can skip multiple generations. Siblings can exhibit very different phenotypes. Most of my family is hardcore TBM. I am the outlier in my family.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So, let's see if somebody does such a study,
> properly controlled, properly conducted. Until
> they do, and until a genetic component is
> identified by it, there is NO reason to assume a
> genetic component to 'religiosity,' and a great
> many reasons to reject such an hypothesis.


Try this 'twins-study':

http://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1268.pdf

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Try this 'twins-study':
>
> http://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1268.pdf

That's interesting.
Did you read the critiques of it, though?
They're pretty devastating.

The only thing a twin study can show is the range of mental and physical variation that can occur starting from the same genetic mold. They are also normally raised by the same parents and share many childhood events. A twin study can NOT show genetic linkage vs environmental influence.

This is a good example of stretching a study too far. This is seen a lot in the "publish or perish" culture of modern science.

"The only thing a twin study can show is the range of mental and physical variation that can occur starting from the same genetic mold. They are also normally raised by the same parents and share many childhood events. A twin study can NOT show genetic linkage vs environmental influence."

COMMENT: I agree. But notice that in your proposed study, it is assumed that a "gene" might appear to be associated with "religiosity," i.e. a common religious propensity. If an identical genome can produces complex divergent behavior, what is the basis for the assumption that a single isolated genetic commonality might not also produce divergent behavior, for the same reason, i.e. "such an assumption will not likely show a genetic linkage due to environmental influences." This undermines the assumptions of the socio-biological project, which insists at the outset that mind and behavior can be explained by genetics and evolution. (See Barkow, Cosmides, and Tooby, "The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture.)
_____________________________________

This is a good example of stretching a study too far. This is seen a lot in the "publish or perish" culture of modern science.

COMMENT: Exactly. And what happens is that such studies are driven by false, or questionable, assumptions, and preferred conclusions that result in bogus interpretations of statistical questionable data. The same problem would likely result in the "study" you proposed.

Could you link to the most devastating?

I looked for some before posting but didn't see much. Hopefully you did.

I did see a lot taking this study and running with it, bolstering the1v's point below.

ifi-, what were the two most devastating critiques?

Here is a general process of finding genes associated with a Trait.

1. Observation of a segregating phenotype. Religious belief clearly falls into this category. Any argument on this one is facetious.

COMMENT: Beliefs are not segregated phenotypes, because (1) they are not observed physical traits in the first place, they are mental states that depend upon reports of questionable reliability; and (2) they are not naturally segregated because of the equivocations associated with the referent of the concept "religious." You would be better off defining observable religious *behavior* as the basis for such a study, assuming you could find data on relevant religious behavior, like church attendance. So, basically, since there is no biological trait to examine, you have to invent an artificial phenotypic "trait" from abstract concept formation, like religiosity, which is precisely the beginning of the problem here. Until you have a segregated phenotype, you have nothing meaningful for genetics to connect to; and beliefs do not provide such; at least not for a biological connected study.
______________________________________________

2. Formulation of a experiment to measure the segregation. This is the part you are hung up on. For this question breaking it down to components is best. For example; do you believe in something spiritual? How many times per day do you think about spiritual/religious topics? Focus the questions to clearly defined but generic terms. Usually it takes time to fine tune the questions to ensure you are getting what you are asking for. This is a great time to start a fight amongst scientist. I have personally been in more than a few at this stage.

COMMENT: Getting reliable phenotypic data from questionnaires is notoriously problematic. In fact, I would venture to say that essentially ALL evolutionary biologists would reject such a suggestion out of hand. It is only the evolutionary psychologists that make such suggestions. So, Kolob is quite right, this item 2 is a nonstarter, and the social scientists' predetermined agenda would collapse right here. There is just no way to get meaningful data, suitable for biological or evolutionary study from questionnaires or interviews.
_____________________________________________

3. Performance of the study and collection of DNA. Running a panel of SNP markers would probably be best but SSR's could get the job done. I'd start with one every 5cM for the best mapping.

COMMENT: I have no quarrel with gene identification or gene mapping techniques generally, which is not the problem in this case. The problem here is in interpreting your results, assuming you obtained something that appeared to be significant. What you are suggesting here is that such techniques would genetically differentiate those individuals with "religiosity" from those of a control group that did not have the SNP (single nucleic polymorphism) or SSR (simple sequence repeat) markers. Ideally, you would find a specific marker for religiosity that was absent or differentiated from those not reporting religious beliefs. But, such an expectation is nothing more than fantasy. As such, you would have to result in some statistical inferences that undoubtedly would be weak at best, and most likely completely insignificant. One obvious problem is that a questionnaire would not in any natural way isolate religious beliefs born primarily from cultural influences from those born primarily from biological influences, not to mention such beliefs born primarily from one's personal investigation and free choice, notwithstanding such influences.

4. Statistical analysis of the phenotype versus the DNA mapping. Discovery of genes associated with the phenotype.
________________________________________________

COMMENT: Again, absolute nonsense. It simply would not work.
________________________________________________

Please let me correct your understanding of genetics. Quantitative Trait Loci mapping or QTL mapping for short is what I was referring too. This is a technique that allows us to understand traits that have multiple genes. In QTL mapping higher sample numbers are required. The more genes associated with the Trait the higher the numbers are needed. Controlled breeding is normally used in this technique to reduce the sample size. This allows for some pretty fine mapping with only 200 offspring. I would not even attempt this type of study in humans without around 100,000 subjects.

COMMENT: The mapping is only as good as the data. And the more subjects you need suggests the difficulty with the entire project, and the more likely there will be interpretative problems, even assuming the remote chance that you would obtain anything interesting. Your questionnaire will be that much more subject to nuanced equivocations as related to subjects' reported beliefs.
_______________________________________________

The accuracy of the mapping also depends upon the heritability. Heritability can be calculated based upon the percentage of the parents with the Trait versus the offspring that exhibit it. In complexly inherited traits heritability is often lower than the more simply inherited ones. So parents and children should be included in the sample.

COMMENT: Yes, of course. And that is just two generations. The stability of the "religiosity gene" would also be a major issue, because of possible epigenetic factors that might be involved, even assuming some genetic influence on religiosity. Such factors affecting gene identification and expression might be environmentally or developmentally produced.
_______________________________________________

Here you go the basic layout for a study. Of course these are just thoughts rattling around. It would have to be a international effort and in many countries highly politically unpopular. It could be complete in a year or two but it is highly unlikely to ever be done.

COMMENT: I appreciate the fact that you at least provided a rather forced "basic layout," notwithstanding the insurmountable problems laden throughout. It is entirely unworkable, and there is absolutely no reason to assume any result from such "study" that would support a genetic basis for religiosity. You obviously have some background in this stuff, undoubtedly more than my own. However, it is quite obvious that your statement, "The shear number of people who have some sort of spiritual belief strongly indicates (doesn't prove) a genetic link," is irresponsibly inaccurate. Moreover, your statement, "It is probably best described as a genetic predisposition for belief," is also irresponsibly inaccurate. The best, most honest description of the situation is that the basis for any dispositions that might exist among humans towards religious belief is unknown. Anything stronger and we are back to the imagination of social scientists.

Sigh.... this conversation needs to be completed over some nice drinks.

************************************************

(1) they are not observed physical traits in the first place, they are mental states that depend upon reports of questionable reliability;

--------------------------------------------------------

Actually they are best defined as behavioral traits not a physical. Behavioral traits are routinely analyzed in zoology with strong genetic links. It has also been proven time and time again that behavioral traits are highly selected for. You can argue that the human brain has evolved for maximum flexibility in behavioral trait adoption. A high level of adaptability does not mean there are not hard-coded behavioral traits. As humans we like to deny that we are slaves to our instincts. Beliefs are a internal mental BEHAVIOR that often drive external BEHAVIORS. :-)

*********************************

(2) they are not naturally segregated because of the equivocations associated with the referent of the concept "religious."
---------------------------------------------------------------

Really?? a debate about the definition of the word. Okay, I'm tossing this one out as being facetious and just plain nonsensical. Any scientific study would need be completed using behavioral analysis based upon clearly defined material. A short definition of the usage of the word in the introduction is all that is needed. I'm not into the pseudosciences, so it either shows statistical significance or not, supports the null hypothesis or doesn't.

*****************************************

Getting reliable phenotypic data from questionnaires is notoriously problematic. In fact, I would venture to say that essentially ALL evolutionary biologists would reject such a suggestion out of hand. It is only the evolutionary psychologists that make such suggestions. So, Kolob is quite right, this item 2 is a nonstarter, and the social scientists' predetermined agenda would collapse right here. There is just no way to get meaningful data, suitable for biological or evolutionary study from questionnaires or interviews.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Getting reliable phenotypic data is always an issue no matter what type of study is done. It is not however impossible, contrary to popular belief. You are condemning the study as impossible based upon the deluded efforts of those in the pseudosciences. Yes I agree there are a bunch of them who just plain make crap up. I've never seen a pseudoscience study that incorporated solid DNA analysis and the numbers of individuals needed to make the data valid. Generally they use less than 100 individuals and the data is highly subject.

Structuring of survey methodology is a highly complicated process. The usage of words and terms is difficult because of difference in interpretation of the same word. This invalidates a lot of poorly written questionnaires. Evolutionary biologist are generally a wee bit too into speculation for my taste. I'd ignore them. We are looking at the behavioral biologist, survey methodologist, and statistician's expertise in this one.

The rest of the comments regurgitated your original disbelieve of the premise for the study. I'll correct a few of the ones lacking data them below.

The large sample size needed is because of lack of a controlled breeding population due to ethics. It is not complexity of the issue. I am also guessing that it is highly environmentally influenced and therefore needs the numbers to be more accurate.

SNP and SSR in a 5cM map are used to determine the region of the genome that is accountable for the variation. It could be one or 20-30 genes in that region of probability. cM stands for centiMorgan and is a measure of probability not physical distance. So no the study is not looking for one gene. It is looking for QTL.

Epigenetic factors can only be determined by multi-generational studies. In a study that I proposed above they would be include in the noise (environmental influence).

Heritability: you are confusing the term. This is a mathematical calculation based upon the observed phenotype being passed on from one generation to the next. Traditionally this is calculated by making an F1 and BC1 populations. It's messier but you can calculate it based upon a large sample size of parent and offspring.

So far I get two things your are arguing for:

1. Religiosity can not be defined.
2. No human study on the mental process of humans can be completed.

Prove it.... :-) Show me an experimental design that would prove or disprove either of these statements.

First, I agree with the "over nice drinks" suggestion.

"So far I get two things your are arguing for:

1. Religiosity can not be defined.
2. No human study on the mental process of humans can be completed."

COMMENT:

First, it is not that "religiosity" cannot be defined. What I question is whether it can be defined, differentiated, and articulated in such a way as to make it scientifically meaningful; e.g. by probing peoples beliefs through questionnaires. By such denial, I am not accepting a burden of proof to prove a negative. The onus is on the social scientist to present a "study" that meaningfully associates this rather loose concept with a proposed biological mechanism. Beliefs and related behavior are NOT like discrete physical traits that can be readily, and non-controversially, identified and studied.

Second, I am not arguing that human mental processes cannot be studied. Moreover, I am not even arguing that questionnaires are per se objectionable in such studies; or that no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from such studies. But your proposal is much different; it is not just a psychological study. It is a study that is supposed to link genetics with beliefs, or at least with human behavior. For THAT study to be successfully completed, you need a lot of data encompassing discrete and reliable information associated with "religiosity." Moreover, you need a mechanism-- not just statistical genetic association-- that goes from DNA sequencing through protein synthesis, through developmental factors, through neurological factors, and presumably mental modules, and finally to behavior. Your study that at best simply statistically links comparative genetic components with questionable behavior data, does not do it; at least not for me. But again, let's see the study, rather than must a loose outline that itself suggests a host of problems, several of which you have acknowledged.

Now you keep getting my proposal confused with social scientist. They just make crap up half the time and are very verbose in doing so. Much like reading a business journal.

I'm surprised your not more on board with my hypothetical proposal. The fun thing about real scientific study is if properly design it proves the null hypothesis true or FALSE. Yes, the very same study that I'm proposing if done correctly could also show that I'm wrong. All you had to do is propose the exact same scenario I did with the hypothesis that it would fail to show any linkage. It was a gimme :-).

What we are concerned with on this statement is if a predisposition to believe in supernatural events is genetic or learned behavior.

I do firmly agree with the alot of data concept. Doing the actual calculation on the study is way over my head. I know it can be done because I've been extensively involved in breeding population studies and statistical design. I always outsourced the math. Logical study design and logistics management was my forte.

Everyone would like to understand the mechanism of how it works. Unfortunately in biochemistry our tools are like trying to understand Mozarts Symphony #41 from 100 random notes. We know something is there but just miss too much. (yeah its one of my favorites). I had a very hard time with this as well when I first started doing genetic studies. I wanted to know how and why!

Now it's time for those drinks.

I think that makes sense, LV...but RFM poster Henry Bemis seems to need something more. I wonder if he can clearly state it...

Tal: In your final comments to your prior post on this topic, which encompassed a string of ridiculous rhetorical and ad hominim attacks, you said:

"Henry - I don't deny, and have never denied, that anyone proposing something about how the world operates needs to provide some sort of argument and evidence if they hope to convince others. Of course, that includes me."

You also said:

"Why you are mistaken on that [my dismissal of "religiosity], no doubt, we will discuss this coming week."

Now, after a week of your desperately perusing the sociobiological literature to find some biological basis for "religiosity" you have come back with nothing. So, what do you do? Ask the same question again. Well, I am not inclined to go over this yet again.

Perhaps, at this point, we should address sociobiology generally as applied to human behavior. Maybe Human would like to defend Robert Trivers' "reciprocal altruism," or some other sociobiological view, since he called my dismissal of Trivers "ridiculous." Presumably, he has facts and arguments to back up this claim.

In any event, I am rather tired of purely rhetorical attacks on me and by views that lack any substance. In the prior post, all I did was question your "religiosity" thesis and conclusion, stating that "religiosity" is poorly defined for purposes of genuine scientific investigation, and that there is no evidence for a biological basis for whatever "religiosity" is supposed to mean. I supported my comments with specific well-articulated arguments. If you think I am wrong, state what you think my view is that is wrong, and specifically why its wrong. Otherwise, let's move on.

Not quite what I was calling ridiculous. But let's move on.

"Religiosity" is a useful sociological concept, too broad to pin down in biology. What one can do is break down 'religiosity' into specific things, isolate them and study it that way. Trivers points the way to that kind of thing.

"Religiosity" is a useful sociological concept, too broad to pin down in biology. What one can do is break down 'religiosity' into specific things, isolate them and study it that way."

COMMENT: As a concept, how is it useful for scientific study of human behavior? What "things" can it be broken down to, and how does that help the scientific study of human behavior?

O.K. Let me try to help out. "Religiosity" might be defined as the human propensity to (1) Associate into groups; (2) Adopt strong ideological commitments within such groups; and (3) Attach some metaphysical (transcendent ontological) significance to such beliefs (e.g. that God exists, or that liberalism is morally absolute, or whatever). O.K. Religion is the prime example of religiosity, so lets focus on religion. (O.K. Are we good with this definition?) If not, feel free to expand or change it.

O.K. You say we can break it down for study. So, presumably, we can study (1), (2) and (3) individually and separately. We can study the tendency of humans to associate into groups; adopt strong ideological commitments, and form associated metaphysical beliefs. Now, the key question. HOW DOES ANY OF THIS HELP US TO UNDERSTAND RELIGIOSITY AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN AN ABSTRACT HUMAN CONSTRUCTED CONCEPT? Does any of this make "religiosity" somehow scientifically meaningful, or subject to investigation? In other words, even if we agree about all of this, what does it get us? Answer: Nowhere. Why, because the link between cause and behavioral effect is not advanced on iota. In fact, by reducing "religiosity" to three more loose behavioral concepts, or ideas, we have made it worse, because each of these three sub-concepts, or sub-behaviors, can exist independent of religiosity.
_______________________________________

Trivers points the way to that kind of thing.

COMMENT: Trivers is a socio-biologist (evolutionary psychologist) whose career has been driven by two basic assumptions: (1) There is a direct link between human behavior and biology, particularly genetics; and (2) There are adaptive evolutionary explanations for such behavior. As pointed out before, his "claim to fame" is primarily in his attempt to explain human altruism by appeal to a theory of "reciprocal altruism" and game theory. He also developed a theory of "parental investment," which I won't go into here. Both theories were intended to explain human altruism and other human behavior in materialist, adaptionist, terms, rather than in humanist terms. His fame arises for his work in the 70s, much of which is based upon evolutionary theory (Neo-Darwinism) that is largely outdated and discredited.

More to the point, Robert Trivers, and other socio-biologists, have views that are the exact opposite from what you (and I) have argued for on this Board for many years, which deny that scientific materialism as a correct metaphysical position because it fails to explain human consciousness and freewill, among other problems.

Thus, I have no idea where you are coming here. BUT, maybe I am missing something. So, please, please, provide me with one, just one, view or theory of Trivers that you think has validity, or that helps, or "points the way" to a correct understanding of human behavior. Maybe in more recent times he has evolved away from the misguided views of his youth.

I don't think it's unlikely that biology plays a part in altruism.

I don't think it's unlikely that biology plays a part in deception and self-deception.

Etc.

And I think altruism and deception/self-deception and etc. play a part in our propensity for religiosity.

In other words, I think a course like this has its place:

http://biology.unm.edu/pwatson/RS%202011.html


Of course such a thing can NEVER tell the whole story of ourselves and our lives. But some of the story? Sure.

What's with the double negatives?

"I don't think it's unlikely that biology plays a part in altruism" is confusing and reeks of academic pomposity.

"I think it's likely that biology plays a part in altruism."

Convoluted phrasing does not make something profound. This entire thread is way too convoluted for my taste, but the above sentence is an unusually compact and obvious example.


Plain writing. It's not just for breakfast anymore.

Heh. Getting an on-line hard on over bad grammar and spelling is long past its time (sadly).

I agree with you. A former me would have X'd this phrasing in the bud. But we live in different times. Let me explain:

You're right. No doubt.

But those of us who are not retired, who are not professionally in front of a desktop, are accorded very tiny windows to write something, and too often we write on devices too small for our fingers and too generally annoying to bother for too long. I'm convoluted again, right?

I'm not a registered user of RfM for many reasons, but the primary reason is because I would be a danger to myself had I access to the edit button. That's a dangerous button to those of us who care enough, like you and I, about writing well. That button has taken on an OCD level of annoyance for some. I don't want to be one of them. I don't want to be ruled by the function. And I already know that I would be because here I am responding to you, who has nothing else to say other than to criticize the formulation of a few, clear sentences, in a thread not to your taste in the first place.

Okay. You're right. But that stick in your ass has got to go. It's 2016, damnit. We're punching shit on iPhones, dude. There's no time for 2nd takes. Like it or lump it, your choice. But the 'nazi-grammer' thing left us mid-2005, brah.

I can barely see the fuckin' letters. Jesus.

Now I agree, my one-offs aren't the best. But that's all I got. Criticize my one-offs to heart's content. Many do I welcome it. But that's all I got for this site, one-offs. Until I retire. Maybe.

Cheers. Again, you're right but who gives a fuck?

Human

“If our brains were simple enough for us to understand them, we'd be so simple that we couldn't.”
-Ian Stewart

I don't know who Ian Stewart is, but that's excellent. Stray Mutt said something similar years ago that has always stuck in my head.

Henry:

I haven't been researching religiosity for a week; I've barely even thought about it, being busy with other stuff. I mentioned it last night because it looks like I have time to get back into the discussion over the next few days.

My earlier comments, on another thread, were not "ad hominem"; I know nothing about your character or personality, and did not address them. I addressed aspects of your thought, as you have expressed it here, which have made inquiry with you difficult. They include an intransigent commitment to "freewill, self-determination and human autonomy" which several times has led you to dismiss certain propositions a priori. Objecting to that unfortunate habit is entirely legitimate. We are - or are supposed to be - talking about *what is true* here, not *what we would like to be true*. This is supposed to be something like science, not a proxy war over values and "human dignity" or whatever.

In any case, I am trying to find some original point of conceptual purchase here with you. It would help if you sketched out specifically the type of argument you're looking for; but since, that I recall, you've never done that, the rest of us are left to guess what exactly you need here. What exactly does an argument which convinces you look like? Do you want specific genes identified, with detailed explanations of how they interact? What?

I continue to wonder what the "rules of the game" are to you, and what they look like in practice, because judging from your comments above, every single thing that any researcher has ever written in support of a biological explanation for the ubiquity of religious belief and practice in our species is worthless garbage - "scientific nonsense", in your words. Everything. That includes writings from evolutionary biologists, biological anthropologists, neuroscientists, everyone.

No one has any clue what exactly you're looking for. What does it look like, specifically? Can you take 90 seconds and type out a mock answer in brief?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2016 12:21PM by Tal Bachman.

By the way, Henry...do you agree or disagree with the following statements:

1.) Religious belief and practice have been present in all known human societies;

2.) Religious belief and practice will most likely always be present in human societies.

?

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1.) Religious belief and practice have been
> present in all known human societies;

False.
It's false for human societies we know of, and there have been "societies" of humans we know nothing of, both before and after we humans figured out writing.

> 2.) Religious belief and practice will most likely
> always be present in human societies.

How can such an arbitrary, baseless prediction have any value whatsoever?

I'd be interested in learning more about the societies we know of that have no religious belief or practice. I'm not finding resources for that on Google. Most sources seem pretty sweeping in the claim that religion is ubiquitous in human societies. Do you have a source I can look at for the contrary claim?

I think you win on a technicality. It appears that Hie was interpreting the statement to mean "religious belief will most likely always be a significant presence in human societies."

Yes, there will always be some people in any society who have beliefs that can be categorized as religious, though I would prefer the term superstitious.

However, there are right now societies where religious practice is at very low levels, consisting of (maybe) baptisms, weddings, and funerals, and perhaps an appearance at a church on major holidays, though even that seems to be dwindling. I would put religious belief at even lower levels than religious practice. Weddings in secular countries (Canada, Europe, Russia, China, to name some of the biggies) are done in churches out of tradition, not out of a sense of religiosity. Though they still preserve the practice, they really don't believe.

A quick google search for "tribes without religion" turned up this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people

Granted it's a Wikipedia article and I don't have time to check all the sources, but it's described as an "indigenous hunter-gatherer group of the Amazon Rainforest"

According to the article they have some interesting characteristics:

"the Pirahã have no concept of a supreme spirit or god" (in my book a concept of a supreme spirit or god is usually a requirement for religion)

"They require evidence based on personal experience for every claim made"

"However, they do believe in spirits that can sometimes take on the shape of things in the environment. These spirits can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things including people."

One might be able to argue that the last point means that they have some form of "religion" but I think that might be debatable as most atheists will tell you that lacking a belief in a higher power doesn't necessarily exclude spiritualism... So It might depend on how you define "religion".

I did think that "... they lost interest in Jesus when they discovered that Everett had never seen him" was an interesting statement.

I think with more time and research, more/better examples of religion free cultures might be found.

Along those lines, some might argue that some forms of hinduism and/or Buddhism might be "religion free" as they don't all require a belief in a higher power, but are more moral codes, which also, in my book, doesn't make them a "religion" any more than day care teaching kids not to hit each other is a religion.

The Hadza, a small tribe of hunter-gatherers in Africa, are another. They have some myths and legends, but no concept of a "god," and attempts to convert them to christianity have failed miserably.

Interesting that two remote tribes were found, having had little to no contact with "outsiders" for a very long time, to not have any "religion." How many more human groups were in the same position 5,000 years ago, only to be "polluted" by insertion of religious memes from outside groups? I don't know. Nobody does. Clearly, though, human groups without religion exist and have existed in the past. And we know little to nothing about the religion of human groups during the vast majority of human existence.

That's why the claim that all human societies have had religion is rather silly. Not even all the ones we know of today have religion, and we know nothing about most human groups that have existed.

Who the fuck would care if it's biological? Only the intlleigent and honest care if it's TRUE.

HH. =)