A new theory on the evolution of religion

Thanks, KilljoyKlown. That means the world to me, coming from such a consummate joker like yourself!:bravo:

---futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Religion doesn't need to evolve , religion has been far above us for thousands of years

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Look religion took us when we were most vulnerable, they were simpler times , let's face it

But now we are in the position of a more knowledgeable world. A more sophisticated people , worldwide

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I don't think religion needs to be improved. My theory is about how religion came to be. Don't overrate the seeming sophistication of our species. It is mostly illusory and, in any event, it is just a transient pulse.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What I'm getting at is that we are not simple farmers or sheep herders , anymore

We are a more knowledgeable people , worldwide

You are absolutely right. , religion does not need to be improved

To the last statement

Why do you say it is illusory

 

Because humans are like a school of fish. The water in which we swim is taken for granted. Our brains are wired to fool us into thinking we are individuals with free will.

Modern neuroscience is proving that we act instinctively and unconsciously, and rationalize our actions after the fact.

For example, the scapegoat mechanism operates around us constantly. Yet we are only vaguely aware.

The scapegoat meachnism describes behavior patterns that result in group violence toward a 'chosen' victim. This group catharsis leads to what is called "group oneness". Everyone in the community is forced to play a role. Harmony is thus restored to the group. This has evolutionary advantages. But a consequence of all of this is individual guilt. Thus there is always tension. The mechanism has ancient roots in human sacrifice and cannibalism.

The ultimate example is from myth. In the gospels everyone plays a role in Jesus's death. His deciples are even forced to denounce him after death, thus ratifying the murder.

A good example of compulsory participation in a scapegoat ritual from history would be the death of Julius Caesar.

From the wiki on Julius Caesar:

Another example is the lynchings of blacks in the US north and south, that also feature elements of religious symbolism in addition to community participation. Hanging over water, burning the corpse, etc.

There is evidence that the mechanism is also present in non-human primates. I've seen footage of chimps hunting, attacking, and killing a former group member. Each chimp take a shot at the victim.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Problems with the OP:

1. Wrong subforum.
2. Not a theory.
3. Largely a plagiarism of René Girard. Compare:

1. Mimetic desire is an expression of the mirror neuron system that drives all social behavior in animals.
2. Through mimetics, a moral instinct begins to develop, as animals become more complex in their socialization.
3. The scapegoat mechanism, which functions to help maintain social stability, develops side by side with the moral instinct.
- Futilitist​

To:

1. mimetic desire: all of our desires are borrowed from other people;
2. mimetic rivalry: all conflict originates in mimetic desire;
3. the scapegoat mechanism is the origin of sacrifice and the foundation of human culture, and religion was necessary in human evolution to control the violence that can come from mimetic rivalry;
4. the Bible reveals the three previous ideas and denounces the scapegoat mechanism.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Girard ​

4. Far too verbose, and admittedly provocative.

 

1. First off, this is the right subforum, and I have already explained why. If I spend anymore time trying to explain why I will be in violation of point #4. That is a catch 22.
2. I think it is a theory, but if you want to call it an idea, that is fine with me.
3. Rene Girard is the one who came up with the theory. I think I pretty much said so. If not: Rene Girard is the originator of this theory. I have added a few things to tie in the moral instinct and mirror neurons.
4. This is a science forum. Verbosity is sometimes unavoidable. Evolution is a provocative idea.

As to the indented points in your charge of plagiarism:

Futilitist point #1. I assume Girard's definition. I mention the mirror neuron system. I assert that it applies to all animals.
Girard point #1. A defintion of mimetic desire.

Futilitist point #2. I talk about a moral instinct.
Girard point #2. Girard defines mimetic rivalry.

Futilitist and Girard largely agree on point #3, though we state it differently.

I don't think that qualifies as plagiarism.


---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Another central concept in the theory is called mimetic desire. This one is somewhat difficult to understand at first. But basically we imitate the desires of others. Monkey see, monkey do. Here are three example of mimetic desire in action:


A single toddler is in room with a pile of toys. He or she is playing with a single toy. Introduce another toddler into the room and which toy do you think he will want to play with? That is mimetic desire.

Here is a cross species example. A dog picks up a ball. He brings it to you and then pulls away when you try to reach for it, his tail wagging the whole time. He wants to enjoin you in a game in which you will playfully compete for the "object of desire". This is the formation of the classic drama triangle. All based, once again on mimetic desire.

One more. A simple animal is chewing on something and he is not dying. Another simple animal notices. An evolutionary benefit is derived by the second animal immitating the desires of the first. Scientists are finding mirror neuron systems in animals other than primates. It has been said that nature really can't design a brain any other way. Thus, mimetic desire is at the root of all animal behavior.


---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Criticisms

 

We could have a better quality of free will if we broke out or put aside religion. , or really any metaphysical higher dimension

Because we are afraid to be wrong

Individualism is a tough road to explore

The Group needs to understand the evidence of their own Individualism in order to become lucid in their thinking

 

Not true. I am an atheist. I don't much like religion. But our quality of free will would remain exactly the same if religion did not exist. We are not wired for free will.

Fear is at the root of it. but not fear of embarrassment. We are afraid to be seen by our group as wrong because our group might eat us. I know we don't think of it that way, but our ancestors did. And we basically have their brains.

I'm not sure I understand this one. This is not some problem to be overcome. It is the way we are. We can't consciously decide how to evolve as a species.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

We are though wired for free will. , that's why I question

 

1. No catch 22, as I was specifically critiquing the OP (original post), not any subsequent posts. This is simply a cop-out from defending posting this thread here. Of psychology, cognition, sociology, anthropology, evolution, and religion, religion is by far the most mentioned in the OP, including the thread title.

2. What you may think does not change the definition of "theory" as applied to a field of science. If you really wish to present something as science you should embrace the accepted terminology instead of misleading.

3. You misrepresented yourself in two ways.

[1] You called this a "new" theory, but most of it has been around since Girard's Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World (1978), so you can hardly call that new.

[2] You said "my theory", only to wait a whole page later to admit to Girard's origination.

You have only added verbosity to an old an much criticized theory. ​

4. Trolls are needlessly provocative, and you seem to be so only in an attempt to mask your plagiarism. Your needless repetition goes well beyond anything required for clarity.

Clarity is served better through precision and succinctness. This is nothing but self-aggrandizing verbosity.

 

These are good criticisms. Thank you for finding a good resource. You don't imply it, but I feel I must make it clear that these criticisms do not invalidate the concept. It is an ongoing philosophic and scientific debate. Please take up the cause of proving me wrong with real, valid, and serious criticisms like the one's you have found. That would make a good discussion.

Also, it is true that Rene Girard is a Catholic apologist. I am not interested in his ideas about a divine origin for Christianity.

Girard's religiosity does not mean that his other insights are necessarily invalid.

If a four year old child describes a brilliant social theory insight and then returns to thumb sucking, that in no way suggests that the brilliant insight sucks. If someone smells bad and talks to parking meters, that does not make him wrong about any particular thing. I'll sometimes pay close attention to "Aqualung, my friend", because I don't want to end up "Thick as a Brick".* **

*note---This statement is just a general statement not directed at anyone here. I just liked the way it sounded.

**Inspired by Ian Anderson.


---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No we are not. We just think we are.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Science does not work that way. Only hacks insist on shifting the burden of proof for their own claims. You are the one making the claims, you support them with solid evidence.

Yet another reason why this belongs in a non-science forum.

 

This is an example of confusion

I question, which is an example of free will

 

I am certainly not coping out. I am defending this thread here. The title is "A new theory on the evolution of religion". It is about the evolution of religion. It is hard not to mention religion.

Please explain why this is not a theory. It is more than an idea and the literature refers to "mimetic theory".

I know that. I read the book. One thing is for sure, it is new to most people on this forum. And I think Girard's original insight was in 1961. I will change the title if I still can.

Good catch there. I made a mistake. I did not intend to steal any credit. I simply forgot to put the link in the OP. If I can still edit the post, I will fix that. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. But realize that this will necessarily make the OP more verbose. Catch 22.

I tried to put it in my own words. And Girard's book is very verbose, as well. And "old and much criticized" is not a good way to characterize the theory. It is one of the most interesting areas of research in human science today. The discovery of mirror neurons in the 1980's has changed the playing field. Did you read the Steven Pinker article?

I am not a troll. I am not plagiarising. I am trying my best, under difficult circumstances to introduce an interesting theory. Please do not insinuate plagiarism or trolling again. That is rude.

That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. I think of this as a discussion. This is not a scientific peer review.

Instead of just saying the idea is wrong, prove it.

I am doing the best I can. Please don't kill the messenger.


---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

 

First off, I am not a hack. I have been supporting the theory with solid evidence. You have not mentioned any of it in your criticism. I am suggesting that what Trooper found represents valid, serious criticism of the theory. Your comments do not. What is wrong with the actual theory besides the delivery?

I am not a hack. You are making an ad hominem attack on me.

This does not belong in science fiction. That is a ridiculous and very unscientific thing to say.

You are getting very close to the troll line on this. Please stop. I will not be baited this way.

And BTW, if mimetic rivalry is so false, why are we having one?

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!