Computer simulations suggest how religions might emerge

By samrose, published at 31 May 2008 - 7:58pm, last updated 10 years 6 weeks ago.

Via: 3quarksdaily
(thanks mitten!)

Ewen Callaway in New Scientist:

God may work in mysterious ways, but a simple computer program may explain how religion evolved

By distilling religious belief into a genetic predisposition to pass along unverifiable information, the program predicts that religion will flourish. However, religion only takes hold if non-believers help believers out – perhaps because they are impressed by their devotion.

a person is willing to sacrifice for an abstract god then people feel like they are willing to sacrifice for the community," says James Dow, an evolutionary anthropologist at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, US, who wrote the program – called Evogod (download the code here).

Dow is by no means the first scientist to take a stab at explaining how religion emerged. Theories on the evolution of religion tend toward two camps. One argues that religion is a mental artefact, co-opted from brain functions that evolved for other tasks.

Another contends that religion benefited our ancestors. Rather than being a by-product of other brain functions, it is an adaptation in its own right. In this explanation, natural selection slowly purged human populations of the non-religious.

"Sometime between 100,000 years ago to the point where writing was invented, maybe about 7000 BC, we begin to have records of people's supernatural beliefs," Dow says.

To determine if it was possible for religion to emerge as an adaptation, Dow wrote a simple computer program that focuses on the evolutionary benefits people receive from their interactions with one another.

"What people are adapting to is other people," he says.

I tend to assume religion

I tend to assume religion and related phenomena are byproducts of the brain's need to encode patterns of what in English we call cause-and-effect, and it is really only as our ability at symbol manipulation has matured have we been able to contemplate more subtle, nuanced, multi-factored models of cause-and-effect. Assuming no mature capacity for nuanced models of cause-and-effect, and assume the universal observations of parents begetting, it's easy to imagine the desire to wrap two otherwise unrelated events in the context of some vague uber-parent's acts. Sorry this isn't better articulated, but I think you can get the flavor of where I'm coming from.

As an added bit of context let me mention that I am ordained in a now defunct little New Age church in Southern California.