Religion as a Side Effect of Evolution

[Jamesh]

What do you anticipate the future “best of the best” will be? Nietzsche's Ubermensch? *

Don't know. I may have decided not to care too much about this. It won't happen in my lifetime so why should I care.

All life must feed on other life. The more powerful individuals get, globally, the larger the amount of force that must be mustered and applied in order to better one's opponents. This is the core problem of any entity that has sufficient power to destroy all of its kind. Until we turn away from paying heed to centralised power, until enlightenment becomes a substantially more frequent desire than power and possessions, then regardless of the capabilities of those who rise to the top of the herd, we are a Dead Species Walking.

Doesn't matter though, as in the big scheme of things - and as all our descendants are not actually us - the universe is big enough for some other life form to achieve something close to immortality - but then even they would self destruct, most probably by devolution. When entities create tools for survival, they will gradually lose what they don't use, they physically soften, and such entities will become subservient to the successful workings of machinery which over sufficient time a key component must fail.

*I read about a third of his book, but it was a little much for me right now. However, the overman was clearly defined.

I still prefer his maxims to Thus Spoke Zeddie.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I thought about this some more and failed to put why I agreed with two that are in contradiction to each other. How can I speak of one existing in #1 and then one not existing in #3? My thinking is that in the finite world one exists- that is, through our personal perception. But in the infinite world one doesn't - nothing changes. What Is is.

I chose those three examples because we were talking about the need to teach different things to different audiences. I can think of reasons why each one is false, but equally good reasons to teach each as true.

Also, if you say sincerity is the opposite of a lie, then you have violated your own definition.

All of them are lies, and all of them are false. But, since each points toward the truth, they are all perfectly sincere and as true as can be.

As for #2, after thinking more on it, should it not read: Another is enlightened through cause and effect, neither the teacher nor the student do any work?

I see no reason to quibble over details. It sounds like you have a fair understanding of cause and effect. The old adage applies here: don't look at my finger, look at the moon.

[Gretchen]

Trevor wrote:

I see no reason to quibble over details. It sounds like you have a fair understanding of cause and effect. The old adage applies here: don't look at my finger, look at the moon.

Or eat a mango. ;-) I got carried away...my apologies.

David wrote earlier in this thread:

Here is an interesting observation from Ramakrishna:

"Two men went into a garden. The worldly-wise man no sooner entered the
gate than he began to count the number of the mango-trees, how many
mangoes each tree bore, and what might be the approximate price of the whole
orchard. The other went to the owner, made his acquaintance, and quietly
going under a mangoe tree began to pluck the fruit and eat it with the owners
consent. Now who is the wiser of the two? Eat mangoes, it will satisfy your
hunger. What is the good of counting the leaves and making vain
calculations? The vain man of intellect is uselessly busy in finding out the
"why and wherefore" of creation while the humble man of wisdom makes
acquaintance with the creator and enjoys the supreme bliss of this world."

[jupta]

Then how did the finite come into being?

Other people may have a better answer to this question, but I have to look at it as one does in math with all finite things as a subset of the one infinite. On one side of the equation it looks like one while on the other - many, but the many make up the one. Simplistic, but for now, that's how I see it. God is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.

If you haven't resolved this question, then how/why do you intend to embark on the other aspects of philosophy?

[Gretchen]

If you haven't resolved this question, then how/why do you intend to embark on the other aspects of philosophy?

Could you please explain what you mean by "other aspects of philosophy?"

[jupta]

If you haven't resolved this question, then how/why do you intend to embark on the other aspects of philosophy?

Could you please explain what you mean by "other aspects of philosophy?"

Mea culpa. There really are no other aspects once you understand the Infinite, are there? Everything else descends from that understanding.

[Gretchen]

jupta wrote:

If you haven't resolved this question, then how/why do you intend to embark on the other aspects of philosophy?

Gretchen wrote:

Could you please explain what you mean by "other aspects of philosophy?"

jupta wrote:

Mea culpa. There really are no other aspects once you understand the Infinite, are there? Everything else descends from that understanding.

You didn't really answer my question. Something was written or inferred that led you to question why I might be interested in other aspects of philosophy, what was it? Further, why do you think I understand the Infinite now, when you implied that I hadn’t resolved the “question” regarding the Infinite before?

Perhaps, you posed an honest question that was not in error.

When taking a test and you run across a problem that you cannot resolve at the moment, do you waste all of your time contemplating that one problem - OR- do you move on, hoping that some other question, whose answer is not quite so elusive, leads you to the resolution of the previous problem?

God is still a mystery.

[jupta]

When taking a test and you run across a problem that you cannot resolve at the moment, do you waste all of your time contemplating that one problem - OR- do you move on, hoping that some other question, whose answer is not quite so elusive, leads you to the resolution of the previous problem?

For one, this isn't a normal test. For two, I guess the 'enlightenment', as it were, comes differently for different persons.

For me, it came quickly, at least superficially. For you it may be different. But I think that the problem of embarking in the other, lesser aspects of philosophy is that you may get too lost in them to trace your way to the ultimate goal. I think that if one doesn't reach a conclusion in philosophy the first time, then one must keep hammering upon it, while seeking guidance if possible, until one understands it. Philosophy is, after all, a purely mental pursuit.

[Gretchen]

For one, this isn't a normal test.

I don't even think it is a test at all. I was merely using the idea to illustrate a point.

jupta wrote:

For two, I guess the 'enlightenment', as it were, comes differently for different persons.

"Enlightenment" escapes me. I come from a Christian background. I am trying to discover a philosophy with which I can live, if there even exists such a thing.

jupta wrote:

But I think that the problem of embarking in the other, lesser aspects of philosophy...

I must ask again: "What lesser aspects of philosophy" are you referring to?

jupta wrote:

But I think that the problem of embarking in the other, lesser aspects of philosophy is that you may get too lost in them to trace your way to the ultimate goal. I think that if one doesn't reach a conclusion in philosophy the first time, then one must keep hammering upon it, while seeking guidance if possible, until one understands it.

Hammering is not my idea of rational thinking. When one hits a brick wall, perhaps that is the answer. Inspiration can be found in many philosophical teachings of various schools of thought and through persons of various beliefs without conversion. Nor do I believe I am in some type of race towards an "ultimate," or for that matter, any type of "goal." God is God. A mystery in some aspects, while apparent in others. What more is there to understand?

[jupta]

I must ask again: "What lesser aspects of philosophy" are you referring to?

Anything that is not absolute.

Hammering is not my idea of rational thinking. When one hits a brick wall, perhaps that is the answer. Inspiration can be found in many philosophical teachings of various schools of thought and through persons of various beliefs without conversion. Nor do I believe I am in some type of race towards an "ultimate," or for that matter, any type of "goal." God is God. A mystery in some aspects, while apparent in others. What more is there to understand?

I think that you have an egotistical perception of the capacity of your brain, in that you believe that whatever level of understanding your brain stops at, is the correct one, at least on a temporary basis. If you keep having this perception, then any kind of further understanding is impossible for you.

[Gretchen]

I think that you have an egotistical perception of the capacity of your brain, in that you believe that whatever level of understanding your brain stops at, is the correct one, at least on a temporary basis. If you keep having this perception, then any kind of further understanding is impossible for you.

For you to judge that I am incorrect, at least on a temporary basis, is to say that you are correct. Are you not suffering then from the same malady with which you have me doomed to an eternity?

Furthermore, I am not a fool, although I've been known to say foolish things in the past. I know there are levels of understanding I may never reach, but that is not enough to discourage me from trying nor is your assessment.

[BMcGilly07]

Consciousness evolved because it gave us a survival advantage. It turned out that humanoids with greater consciousness had more chance of surviving and passing on their genes than humanoids with lesser consciousness. That's the way natural selection works.

I have become interested in evolution theory from a non-scientist perspective – as I am not a scientist. I have read where there exist certain adaptations that, as a whole, may not necessarily be good, or that certain genetic adaptations cause peculiar “side effects,” for lack of a better term.

In taking what Kevin has stated, given that consciousness was an evolutionary adaptation for survival, could it be that the creation of religion and gods are a “side effect” of this adaptation?

For instance the Irish Elk Google Search Results for Irish Elk . Through the selection of and competition for mates the male of the species grew ever greater and more elaborate antlers to signal its virility and genetic prowess. These antlers became a huge investment for the male, having to regrow them yearly after losing them post-rutting season. It is believed the reason for their extinction extended from this investment, the amount of nourishment needed to feed the blood vessels which coursed through the velvet and created these magnificent antlers became far too costly. At the slightest change in environment they chanced extinction, having rolled the genetic dice and invested too heavily in what ended up being a blunder.

Religion may very well be the antlers of Mankind. The wisdom of those about whom these are formed created the backbone of the rules governing civilization, perhaps civilization's spine may become too calcified and Mankind will be too rigid to change as needed.

This alien being of yours (ie, your "God") must have been extremely lazy — to seed a world with only microbes, and then wait billions of years for intelligent life to evolve.

Why didn't he "implant" fully conscious life right from the start?

I know: "For reasons known only to him". ;-)

If a genetic predisposition towards God and/or a God concept exists, then, in accordance with Totality, it has existed since the beginning, correct? In your opinion, what viable situation exists to explain why it took so long for this evolutionary adaptation to manifest itself? Or is there one?

Any genetic predisposition to religious experience may be genetically hard wired in us, but the predisposition to religious concepts might be a subset of the overall predisposition towards memes, which is a reflection of accommodating and allowing for society to exist.

Note: edited format

[Gretchen]

Religion may very well be the antlers of Mankind. The wisdom of those about whom these are formed created the backbone of the rules governing civilization, perhaps civilization's spine may become too calcified and Mankind will be too rigid to change as needed.

Any genetic predisposition to religious experience may be genetically hard wired in us, but the predisposition to religious concepts might be a subset of the overall predisposition towards memes, which is a reflection of accommodating and allowing for society to exist.

Interesting. Memes are new to me. I read a little on them, and you may have touched on something here. You separate religious experience from religious concepts. I agree, sharing such experiences seems to lead to defineable concepts, and then to religious beliefs. The experience is part of the awakening of mankind to his/her beginning and the religious concepts are his/her way of defining that experience. One is true and the other not true...or at least inadequate. However, it seems that there are people who are not atheists but also not religious, but spiritual. (When I say spiritual, I mean living the experience rather than dwelling on it, thereby depreciating it's intrinsic value.) Wouldn't this be adapting?

So, tell me a little more about these memes.

[BMcGilly07]

Religion may very well be the antlers of Mankind. The wisdom of those about whom these are formed created the backbone of the rules governing civilization, perhaps civilization's spine may become too calcified and Mankind will be too rigid to change as needed.

Any genetic predisposition to religious experience may be genetically hard wired in us, but the predisposition to religious concepts might be a subset of the overall predisposition towards memes, which is a reflection of accommodating and allowing for society to exist.

Interesting. Memes are new to me. I read a little on them, and you may have touched on something here. You separate religious experience from religious concepts. I agree, sharing such experiences seems to lead to defineable concepts, and then to religious beliefs.

Religious beliefs and concepts rarely follow from religious experience. Religious experience is just another name for mystical states which serves wisdom as experiential proof of the truth of alternative perspectives. To my mind, religious beliefs and concepts are attachments formed by the ego for support and defense. The Latin root of the word religion is religiere means 'to bind.'

The experience is part of the awakening of mankind to his/her beginning and the religious concepts are his/her way of defining that experience. One is true and the other not true...or at least inadequate. However, it seems that there are people who are not atheists but also not religious, but spiritual. (When I say spiritual, I mean living the experience rather than dwelling on it, thereby depreciating it's intrinsic value.) Wouldn't this be adapting?

So, tell me a little more about these memes.

Some religious concepts correlate to certain individual "religious" experiences, but as far as they relate to anything beyond the individuals experience they're set up for control and to maintain a power base.

Why do you think dwelling on an experience depreciates its value? And, do you think anything has intrinsic value?

For more information on memes, check this link out from The Reasoning Show featuring Susan Blackmore and her writings in general. Here's a link to a video with more information about memes.

Note: added link

[Shahrazad]

BMcGilly,

Religion may very well be the antlers of Mankind. The wisdom of those about whom these are formed created the backbone of the rules governing civilization, perhaps civilization's spine may become too calcified and Mankind will be too rigid to change as needed.

Any genetic predisposition to religious experience may be genetically hard wired in us, but the predisposition to religious concepts might be a subset of the overall predisposition towards memes, which is a reflection of accommodating and allowing for society to exist.

This makes sense to me.

[Gretchen]

Religious beliefs and concepts rarely follow from religious experience. Religious experience is just another name for mystical states which serves wisdom as experiential proof of the truth of alternative perspectives. To my mind, religious beliefs and concepts are attachments formed by the ego for support and defense. The Latin root of the word religion is religiere means 'to bind.'

The definition suits itself.

Why do you think dwelling on an experience depreciates its value? And, do you think anything has intrinsic value?

David told a story earlier:

"Two men went into a garden. The worldly-wise man no sooner entered the
gate than he began to count the number of the mango-trees, how many
mangoes each tree bore, and what might be the approximate price of the whole
orchard. The other went to the owner, made his acquaintance, and quietly
going under a mangoe tree began to pluck the fruit and eat it with the owners
consent. Now who is the wiser of the two? Eat mangoes, it will satisfy your
hunger. What is the good of counting the leaves and making vain
calculations? The vain man of intellect is uselessly busy in finding out the
"why and wherefore" of creation while the humble man of wisdom makes
acquaintance with the creator and enjoys the supreme bliss of this world."

It is a wonderful story. If the humble man of wisdom dwelt on his enjoyment, then, he, too, is looking for the "why and wherefore" and has lost the value of the blissful experience. So, yes, I do believe these types of experiences have an intrinsic value - that is, to your soul. Although,in making such a claim, it would see that I am reducing the experience to a "thing" that has value. However, in this example, would enjoying the supreme bliss of the world have value in the moment? I would think so.

Thank you for the links. I will take a look at them.

[BMcGilly07]

Why do you think dwelling on an experience depreciates its value? And, do you think anything has intrinsic value?

David told a story earlier:

"Two men went into a garden. The worldly-wise man no sooner entered the
gate than he began to count the number of the mango-trees, how many
mangoes each tree bore, and what might be the approximate price of the whole
orchard. The other went to the owner, made his acquaintance, and quietly
going under a mangoe tree began to pluck the fruit and eat it with the owners
consent. Now who is the wiser of the two? Eat mangoes, it will satisfy your
hunger. What is the good of counting the leaves and making vain
calculations? The vain man of intellect is uselessly busy in finding out the
"why and wherefore" of creation while the humble man of wisdom makes
acquaintance with the creator and enjoys the supreme bliss of this world."

It is a wonderful story. If the humble man of wisdom dwelt on his enjoyment, then, he, too, is looking for the "why and wherefore" and has lost the value of the blissful experience. So, yes, I do believe these types of experiences have an intrinsic value - that is, to your soul. Although,in making such a claim, it would see that I am reducing the experience to a "thing" that has value. However, in this example, would enjoying the supreme bliss of the world have value in the moment? I would think so.

Thank you for the links. I will take a look at them.

There is no such thing as intrinsic value, any value is undoubtedly projected onto things by the ego, the evaluator. Just as you state an experience has intrinsic value, the value you perceive is being projected by your ego.

The point of the above parable is that it is not wise to just speculate or measure what appears to be the experience of awakening, but to seek out its source and to experience it for yourself. The experience, however is not the be-all / end-all of enlightenment, hence the getting acquainted with the owner. The above parable is a remedy against academia, against thinking that intellectualizing is the way to fully experience wisdom.

It should be pointed out that it is in no way a condemnation of the intellect, but rather of right application of the intellect, to know the owner of the orchard and that the value in the mangoes is in feeding and tasting them. Without the intellect the mango orchard couldn't be distinguished from a patch of cacti, nor the owner from the slave tending in the field.

You had mentioned the soul, what is the soul if not a fiction?

[Gretchen]

You had mentioned the soul, what is the soul if not a fiction?

The essence of being. Intellect is the capacity to know, the soul is the capacity to be.

[BMcGilly07]

You had mentioned the soul, what is the soul if not a fiction?

The essence of being. Intellect is the capacity to know, the soul is the capacity to be.

If the soul is the capacity to be, than it isn't existent. If it is the cause, and in being the capacity to be, it possesses the effect, if it possesses the effect it already is and cannot originate. for if the soul is the capacity to be, what is it the capacity to be? The soul? This strikes me as a redundant, non-explaining explanation. All effects are somewhat pre-existent in their causes, but to say that if, as I imagine, you are defining the soul as immortal than it follows that the above explanation is that the soul is the capacity to be the soul.

Looking at it another way, if the soul is the capacity to be, and if existence is defined as that which appears, than it follows that you're saying the soul is the capacity to appear. Which doesn't mean much to me either as all things are appearances to the mind. Now if you're equating the mind with the soul insofar as the soul is the capacity to be aware of appearances, than we haven't gotten very far in that direction either. As soon as we make a statement about the mind we bring it into the realm of existence and relegate it to the realm of appearances as a thing and so whatever is said of it can be refuted.

Care to give another definition of the soul?

Bryan

[Gretchen]

If the soul is the capacity to be, than it isn't existent. If it is the cause, and in being the capacity to be, it possesses the effect, if it possesses the effect it already is and cannot originate. for if the soul is the capacity to be, what is it the capacity to be? The soul? This strikes me as a redundant, non-explaining explanation. All effects are somewhat pre-existent in their causes, but to say that if, as I imagine, you are defining the soul as immortal than it follows that the above explanation is that the soul is the capacity to be the soul.

Looking at it another way, if the soul is the capacity to be, and if existence is defined as that which appears, than it follows that you're saying the soul is the capacity to appear. Which doesn't mean much to me either as all things are appearances to the mind. Now if you're equating the mind with the soul insofar as the soul is the capacity to be aware of appearances, than we haven't gotten very far in that direction either. As soon as we make a statement about the mind we bring it into the realm of existence and relegate it to the realm of appearances as a thing and so whatever is said of it can be refuted.

Care to give another definition of the soul?

Bryan

In the strictest sense of the matter, I suppose any definition of anything can be refuted, as can it’s purported existence. Let me try once more… I can only state that the soul is immortal in as much as that “substance” from which the soul is derived is immortal. The soul is not the cause of the experience. The soul is that which experiences, and the mind reaps the benefit of any wisdom gained from the experience. Although, as I stated before, it would seem that to dwell on the experience in the mind would make it a thing and no longer an experience*. The soul exists in as much as any of us exists. If we don’t exist, then the soul doesn’t exist. It sounds like this discussion is headed to the finite/infinite view of the world, as does everything.

Can one have a spiritual experience that affects him/her without being aware of it? What is that one precious milli-second of bliss the wise one experiences before it is understood by the mind and enjoyed? Unconscious to conscious connection. Experience in the moment to an experience of recollection. In your opinion, how does one gain wisdom?



* Experience can be defined in several ways...I am referring to the experience in the moment, not recollective, as in recalling a past experience.