Evolution of Religion and Naturalism

[wgreen]

If morality (altruism, etc.) and religion evolved, and so are not accurate reflections of reality, only evolutionarily expedient trends, then isn't it true that the same could be true about naturalism? Is it not the case that naturalism has evolved in the same way and so should be subject to the same skepticism from the evolutionist?

Of course, the above question presumes that religion and philosophies like naturalism are linked to evolution through genetics and natural selective processes.

This wuestion is not about arguments from the evolutionary origins of morality and religion. I think these ideas are well established in the evolutionary scientific community. Sociobiologists speak of the evolution of altruism, for example. rather, the question assumes this to be the case and asks if naturalism (or materialism, if you will) is subject to the same skepticism that results: i.e. since evolution is not an optimizing process, but based on contingencies, then there is no reason that psychological tendencies resulting from this process are accurate reflections of reality.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Bill Green

[Grumpy]

Religion is a reflection of early man's(and some recent ones, L. Ron Hubbard) ignorance of natural causes and his search for answers. It has evolved from simple pantheism and sun worship to sophisticated theological constructs.

Naturalism is the rejection of supernatural explanations for explanations utilizing natural laws and processes.

They are very different philosopical outlooks on life, the universe and everything.

Grumpy

[The Persnickety Platypus]

since evolution is not an optimizing process, but based on contingencies, then there is no reason that psychological tendencies resulting from this process are accurate reflections of reality.

Evolution not an optimizing process, but based on contingencies? I must digress. Evolution *is* an optimizing process, yet comes about as result of a series of contingencies.

The path of a species' evolution depends entirely upon the natural conditions it is thrust under. In order to better cope with these conditions, the species optimizes itself. Humans, for example, are much better off than we were thousands of years ago. Extinction is not a threat, our numbers have risen, and most notably, our capabilities have developed to the extent of giving us the power to directly shape the planet's future (an obvious advantage). Essentially, we once had difficulty coping with our environment; now we flourish from it. This is the mark of a truely successful species.

Now, more regarding your question. You agree that religion and certain naturalistic theories are both evolved patterns of thinking. Therefore, the first question we must consider is what environmental necessity brought these traits about.

Human survival demands a highly proficient brain. The biological function of a brain is to analyze situations and determine appropriate responses. Therefore, Humans, given the massive size of our brain, are designed to analyze a high input of information. In order to properly function we must make note of things such as the weather, available resources, and oncomming danger. Somewhere in our evolutionary history, we also developed the need to make note of much more complicated determinents such as "why do I exist?", and "how did I get here?".

Early humans had thusfar gleaned little knowledge of the processes of nature. They had no idea why it rained, why the sun moved across the sky, ect. Unable to explain this phenomena, they confided in the supernatural, and conducted their day to day lives accordingly.

Later in history, as we became more knowledgable on this simple phenomena, more complicated matters came about. At this time collective human society was flourishing, and there were ongoing problems dealing with how it should conduct itself. Thus marks the beginning of organized religion. Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and a number of other pagan religions not only attempted to explain what we did not understand (how the world began, why people act the way they do, ect), but also provided guidelines as to how we are to conduct ourselves and function as a society.

Sometime later, advanced science took off. Finally we began to glean some insight as to how the world began, how humans came about, and how all the world's phenomena and related processes function in unison. So came about evolutionary theory, amoung many other things.



You are right in a sense- Naturalism, or our current understanding thereof, is not necessarily an accurate representation of reality. Current scientific knowledge is but a representation of our best guess at reality using the information given. Chances are, we have all ready gotten a lot of things right (for example, the theory of gravity seems pretty well set in stone, we have sufficiently established that species change over time and are superior counterparts to past life forms, ect). However, as new information continues to come in, our understanding of things as we know it will likely change in many faculties. Theories will die out, some currently widely accepted knowledge will be overridden, and data will become more accurate. Our current knowledge will niether die or prevail; just get built upon.

Religion and evolutionary theory are not "trends", as you suggest. They are not liable to come and go, replacing each other in accordance to popularity. They are all but mere bricks in the long road to understanding. Hundreds of years from now we will have achieved a much greater level of understanding, and contemporary theory will be but a shadow of our newfound intellect.

Should we be skeptical of our current understanding of naturalism? Of course, we should be skeptical of everything; it is essential that we leave room to consider new information. If not, we cannot continue to gain knowlege and prowress, as we have done for millions of years previous.

[wgreen]

Evolution *is* an optimizing process, yet comes about as result of a series of contingencies.

Evolution is not an optimizing process. It does not produce the optimum solution to a problem, it only selects for the best solution presented to it at the time by random processes.

Many evolutionists have pointed out, in arguing against design, that the design features of many animals are flawed and less than optimum.

This means that an evolutionarily produced solution does not represent the optimum, only a randomly produced "solution" that worked in a particular circumstance.

[wgreen]

You agree that religion and certain naturalistic theories are both evolved patterns of thinking.

If our pattern of thinking arose from random mutations selected by the environment, then it is essentially random. That is, there could exist a much better mechanism of thinking that never arose simply because the mutation never occurred, or it occurred but was destroyed. Maybe the man that was born with the gene was struck by a meteorite and died before reproducing.

Our position, then, is that we must somehow assess the validity of our way of thinking after the fact. How do we conduct this assessment? What methodology do we employ? Are we to employ a naturalistic methodology?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Our position, then, is that we must somehow assess the validity of our way of thinking after the fact. How do we conduct this assessment? What methodology do we employ? Are we to employ a naturalistic methodology?

Scientists have observed natural phenomena, tested the known variables, and made conclusions as accurate as possible considering the given information. Now your question is, "how do we know we are right"?

Well, we don't. Welcome to the subjective human existance. The only mode of verification we have involves repeating the experiment, and re-assessing the data.

Now, allow me a question; just where are you going with this? Is the intent to shed doubt on contemporary science? Perhaps in favor of a religious alternative?



Now I have some technical issues with your assessment that I would like to discuss...

Evolution is not an optimizing process. It does not produce the optimum solution to a problem, it only selects for the best solution presented to it at the time by random processes.

Many evolutionists have pointed out, in arguing against design, that the design features of many animals are flawed and less than optimum.

This means that an evolutionarily produced solution does not represent the optimum, only a randomly produced "solution" that worked in a particular circumstance.

My bad, I was unaware you were being literal.

You're right; the optimal solution to a species' dillema would perhaps be for it to morph into something of a demi-god, with ultimate control over it's surroundings.

Even though this is not viable, a species evolutionary patterns are still much more than "solutions"; or to me they are, at least.

I'm not one to believe that a organism's only goal in life is simply to pass on it's genes. Rather, the mark of a truely successful organism is for it's species' to flourish. Each successive mutation in an organism brings it's species ever closer to this optimum; it just so happens that retalitory mutations in contemporary animals often prevent this organism from getting ahead.

Of course, just as in any other competition, there will be winners and losers. The Dodo bird, inable to cope with the aspiring human presence within it's midst, is a loser. Animals like sharks, crocidiles, and jellyfish, on the other hand, could be considered grand champions, as they not only flourish, but have done so for millions of years on end.

The result of evolution, therefore, is an improved, more apt lifeform. A failed species, by the same logic, is one which could not evolve in response to it's changing conditions. All and all, as I said before, this makes evolution an optimizing process, because it makes an entity as effective as is possible.


Anyway, there's sort of a philosophical view on it. Don't know if it is of any real use to this thread...

If our pattern of thinking arose from random mutations selected by the environment, then it is essentially random. That is, there could exist a much better mechanism of thinking that never arose simply because the mutation never occurred, or it occurred but was destroyed. Maybe the man that was born with the gene was struck by a meteorite and died before reproducing.

My second quirk- mutations are not random. They are specially chosen by and according to their functional effectiveness.

No better "mechanism of thinking" can exist. If there is in fact a better mechanism of thinking, it would have evolved (or perhaps, has yet to evolve). A superior mutation cannot lose to an inferior one. It is biologically impossible.

This summation (if in fact accurate) has signifigant implications on your argument. That is, our current perspective of the world *must* be the best best perspective possible. Natural selection has made sure of that.



Anyway, just my thoughts.

[QED]

If [any evolved product] arose from random mutations selected by the environment, then [the evolved product] is essentially random.

Pardon me for paraphrasing you here Bill, but I'd like to point out why this would be an incorrect thing to say. Selection sieves randomness just like a real sieve sorts random sizes. Using this analogy, if we load a sieve with randomly sized stones, there is nothing "essentially random" about what comes out the other side. I think you've been focusing on the wrong component here.

[wgreen]

No better "mechanism of thinking" can exist. If there is in fact a better mechanism of thinking, it would have evolved (or perhaps, has yet to evolve). A superior mutation cannot lose to an inferior one. It is biologically impossible.

This summation (if in fact accurate) has signifigant implications on your argument. That is, our current perspective of the world *must* be the best best perspective possible. Natural selection has made sure of that.

Are you saying that all possible mutations have actually occurred in the past and that the individuals with those mutation have survived to reproduce and establish populations that avoided accidental extinction (that is, extinction not due to lack of fitness related to the gene in question)?

Natural selection can only act on what is available to it. It does not act on all possible cases.

It is quite possible that there was a gene for greater intelligence, for example, that arose through a random mutation, but was eliminated by causes unrelated to that gene's fitness.

There is the story of the anti-social kitten, for example, that out-survived its social siblings because, as it hid in the house, they ran out to play, only to be hit be run over by a truck.

It seems highly unlikely that all possible characteristics of organisms have been realized and acted upon by selection for that characteristic in the past.

[wgreen]

Using this analogy, if we load a sieve with randomly sized stones, there is nothing "essentially random" about what comes out the other side. I think you've been focusing on the wrong component here.

Maybe this is a difference of semantics. Randomness is a tough issue to begin with. I think that the stone sizes are still essentially random, though I agree they are not completely so.

You're right, with the sieve we have produced a configuration of stones that is less likely in a strict sense of probability.

Natural selection has the same effect.

However, the stone sizes are still random in the sense that the initial set was not designed nor produced by any organizing process. they are still random with respect to the exhaustive set of all possible sizes.

Likewise with natural selection. The final product (set of characteristics) is less random than the input set, but the set of input characteristics was still a randomly produced set. That is, it was not exhaustive and nor was it ordered in any way.

So, let's say there are x conceivable mutations. I take a randomly selected subset of these and put them through the filter of natural selection. I have a more ordered set, but the mutations in it are still random with respect to the exhaustive set of all possible mutations.

[wgreen]

Now your question is, "how do we know we are right"?

Well, we don't. Welcome to the subjective human existance. The only mode of verification we have involves repeating the experiment, and re-assessing the data.

What are you saying here? I agree with the first part, where you seem to be saying that we cannot build an objective view of the world, but I'm not sure how you think that repeating experiments solves this problem.

With regard to where I am going with this thread...

I am exploring the question I posted, to see where it goes. The question occurred to me the other day, and I wanted to see if any of you all have an answer for it. I did not know whether you would or not.

Thank you for your input.