Blogs

The Evolution of Belief

“Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music.”
- Sam Harris

There is debate about whether or not religion evolved as an adaptation or as a spandrel. If religion is an adaptation, there was some reason for it to aid us in our journey to survive and procreate. If it is a spandrel it serves no purpose and is just a byproduct of the other mechanisms of our physiology. Earlier this month, an article in the New York Times Magazine entitled “Darwin’s God” highlighted the debate over this issue. Scott Atran, a renowned anthropologist was the focus of this article. His view is that belief in a God and creator is the easy way it; is the cognitive path of least resistance and takes less effort than disbelief. A few weeks later there was an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times entitled “God’s Dupes” which took the argument a step further. Not only is belief simple-minded, but it is unnecessary self-deception; humans should recognize that we no longer have a need for this troublesome behavior. Religion is the cause of war which leads to poverty and famine. The most striking element for me in these ideas is the misplaced arrogance with which they are wrought. I find the idea that religion, whether it comes from adaptation or as spandrel, cannot be unnecessary. This is a premature idea for the following reasons: we do not know why we came to have religion, if we say that it is unnecessary we are devaluing its worth in our lives presently, and we do not know where it will lead us.

Isabelle Winer

3-19-07

EvoLit- Dalke

A Looking Glass for the Development of Buildings

One of the most fascinating and influential aspects of the story of evolution is the manner in which it can be applied outside of the context of biological evolution.  By considering a topic in the light of the mechanisms and principles of biological evolution one is able to gain a fresh perspective on ancient ideas and structures. One example of this is the light shed by applying the story of evolution to the change in the shelter of man over time.  Overall the shelter used by human beings is influenced solely by the needs and desires of the people living in it, therefore it is ultimately the selective pressure that determines the evolution of the shelters they inhabit.  Despite not being a biological entity, the change over time in the structure of man’s shelters can be well explained by the principles established by Darwin and those who followed him in their construction of the story of evolution.  The structures best adapted to serving the needs of a group of people will be the one’s that continue to be used and thus much of their basic blueprints will be passed on to the next generation of shelters built. 

The evolution of morality is one of the most controversial evolutionary topics that has troubled philosophers, biologists, sociologists, and evolutionary psychologists since the inception of natural selection as the major theory of biological evolution. Even Darwin himself had difficulty concretely explaining the origin of morality (Uchii 1996). In sum, the subject’s complexity has generated many conflicting theories, most of which conform to the theory of natural selection, while others use it to undermine Darwin’s original theory of evolution. In this paper, I will first outline some prominent theories of the evolution of morality. I will then analyze the evolution of morality without assuming natural selection is true, and use my analysis to determine if the most logical explanations of the evolution of morality support or contest the theory of natural selection. In doing so I will argue that Dennett’s assertion that “cranes” (theories based on reductionist logic) are more valid theories than “skyhooks” (theories involving mystery of miracle) is detrimental to the evolution of the theory of evolution.

Hayley Reed

March 20th, 2007

A Discovery of New Words & Worlds:

Language’s Direct Impact on Evolution

 “Language is the source of misunderstandings.” -Antoine de Saint- Exupery   

Conscience is generally thought of as a sense that allows us to experience feelings of guilt when we act in ways that contradict our innate moral values. We are able to experience moral judgment prior to acting in a certain way because of this conscience. There are many answers as to where this conscience comes from. Some believe in is innate and others believe it is a product of our cultural environment. Our cultural environment includes elements such as parents, friends and religion. A moral code based on religious belief incorporates the suggestion of a divine command and verdict that tends to create an authoritarian type of moral convention.

The process of cultural evolution is similar to that of biological evolution, but departs from it in significant ways.  More drastic changes occur in cultural evolution over a shorter period of time, and people have agency to decide how they will approach cultural evolution and find their place in contemporary culture.  Both forms of evolution are theorized and contested by scholars.  In the 1735 novel, The Wayward Head and Heart (Les Égarements du coeur et de l’esprit) by Crébillon fils, the author presents a young boy learning to navigate through the rigid aristocratic society of the day, and he encounters two older, more experienced socialites who give him differing opinions of cultural evolution.  Those shed light on how people view their position in society, as an individual who conforms to yet is separate from a group.

The story of evolution can provide a window into understanding the world. It lends us an explanation of how things have come into existence; and not only in a biological sense. The story has become more expansive and all-encompassing than we may even realize, and it can be used to account for aspects of society and culture. If we accept that the principal diagram for evolution draws on the idea of natural selection, then we can in turn rationalize the former ‘aspects’ from an evolutionary standpoint. Among the most rapidly changing, and therefore most visibly evolved, aspect of society is consumerism. The purpose of this paper is to explore how we can apply the story of evolution, beyond the context of biology, to understand how products have changed in order to adapt to our ever-changing personal needs as consumers.

Emergence That May Become Possible By ‘Blink'

For as long as they have co-existed, evolution and religion have butted heads. Religions decry evolution as a farce and evolution, in turn, condemns religion for touting what they believe to be a wrong and ignorant argument. Ironically however, both evolution and religion have evolved to mimic one another in certain ways. In order to maintain and attract more followers (ie: survive), religion has changed and adapted (ie: evolved). Meanwhile, evolution has grown closer to becoming a religion.

Evolution and religion are simply two philosophies set on opposite sides of the spectrum. On the abstract end, there is the intangible-based religion and on the other, more concrete end, lies evolution, relying on the tangible. Just as faith feeds religion, its opposite, reason, sustains evolution. It is reasoning that drives evolution forward and allows it to change. If new evidence is discovered to dispute an argument of evolution, it is simply changed to suit the newfound proof. Religion, on the other hand, relies on faith to move forward-if evidence is found to dispute a belief, it is ignored. In both, change is a necessity-in evolution, because it as a theory in itself, requires that change occur as more evidence is discovered and in religion because as time and society changes, it must adapt to remain attractive to new and current prospects.

Given the hierarchical, self-important outlook of human-kind on existence, it is no surprise that most regard ethical knowledge as a “marvelous perspective that we and no other creatures have” (Dennett, 468). Such a statement may seem well-founded, as ethics are derived from our own ideas of human morality and the consequent rules established in their wake. Yet, it is difficult to discern just how this societal construct came into existence. In a world where the ends tend to justify the means, how can we explain the evolution of human morality and the resultant negation of our animalistic instincts?