Religion and the death spiral of the moth
dkomo
in the religions of the world is not a direct adaptation but a
*side-effect* of the way our minds work.
But what exactly is a side-effect of evolution? Richard Dawkins in his
new book _The God Delusion_ offers a good example of such a side-effect:
the tendency of moths to fly in crazy patterns near a bright light
source at night, such as candle flames, campfires and electric lights.
The moth will often fly into the flame and immolate itself.
I had a instance of this earlier this year. I was sitting at the
computer at night in my office last spring when a moth happened to fly
in and began immediately to repeatedly bounce off the ceiling and
overhead light fixture. This is extremely annoying when you're trying
to get some work done, so I started looking around for The Terminator,
my rolled up newspaper which I use to dispatch moths. But before I
could reach for it, I saw the moth fly straight into the very hot light
bulb overhead during one of its swoops and was killed instantly. I
could see it lying upside down inside the translucent light fixture.
So what causes this idiotic moth behavior? It isn't an evolutionary
adaptation as it obviously doesn't improve the moth's fitness. Dawkins
explains it in the section "Religion as a By-Product of Something Else"
in Chapter 5 "The Roots of Religion".
Dawkins speculates that moths use light sources at optical infinity at
night (such as the moon or distant cities) to navigate:
"The insect nervous system is adept at setting up a temporary rule of
thumb of this kind: 'Steer a course such that the light rays hit your
eye at an angle of 30 degrees.' Since insects have compound eyes (with
straight tubes or light guides radiating out from the center of the eye
like the spines of a hedgehog), this might amount in practice to
smoething as simple as keeping the light in one particular tube or
ommatidium."
_The God Delusion_, p. 173
Ordinarily such a navigation system serves the moth well. The system is
quite accurate as long as the light source is at infinity, and they can
use the same system with reversed sign to return home after a foray.
The problem arises when the moth flies past a light source that is close
by, with its light rays diverging like the spokes of a wheel. As the
moth attempts to keep a angle of 30 degrees to the light, it will have
to keep turning its fly path, producing a spiral which steers it into
the flame or electric light.
Now Dawkins draws the analogy between religion and the moth:
"Now, apply the by-product lesson to religious behavior in humans. We
observe large numbers of people -- in many areas it amounts to 100
percent -- who hold beliefs that flatly contradict demonstrable
scientific facts as well as rival religions followed by others. People
not only hold these beliefs with passionate certitude, but devote time
and resources to costly activities that flow from holding them. They
die for them, they kill for them. We marvel at this, just as we
marveled at the 'self-immolation behavior' of the moths. Baffled, we
ask why. But my point is that we may be asking the wrong question. The
religious behavior may be a misfiring, an unfortunate by-product of an
underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is or
once was, useful. On this view, the propensity that was naturally
selected in our ancestors was not religion per se; it had some other
benefit, and it only incidentally manifests itself as religious behavior."
_The God Delusion_, p. 173-174
A question I have is, "is religious behavior and moth light-seeking
malfunction a "spandrel" as Stephen J. Gould defined it:
"A spandrel is a phenotypic characteristic that evolved as a side effect
of a true adaptation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29
The article above doesn't make it clear that a spandrel, although a
side-effect, becomes itself an adaptation. That is, it becomes useful
to the organism and is subject to selection, as in the hacker's "misbug":
"In computer programming, a misbug is an unexpected behaviour of a
program that turns out to be useful."
So the moth's behavior around nearby lights is not a spandrel because it
is not helpful to the moth. Religious behavior is a spandrel because it
could be helpful to humans and itself come under selection in cultural
evolution.
The original spandrel in architecture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel
drdach
> It's often said that belief in supernatural agents such as those found
> in the religions of the world is not a direct adaptation but a
> *side-effect* of the way our minds work.
>
> But what exactly is a side-effect of evolution? Richard Dawkins in his
> new book _The God Delusion_ offers a good example of such a side-effect:
dkomo continues:
"Now, apply the by-product lesson to religious behavior in humans. We
observe large numbers of people -- in many areas it amounts to 100
percent -- who hold beliefs that flatly contradict demonstrable
scientific facts as well as rival religions followed by others. On
this view, the propensity that was naturally selected in our ancestors
was not religion per se; it had some other benefit, and it only
incidentally manifests itself as religious behavior." _The God
Delusion_, p. 173-174
A question I have is, "is religious behavior a "spandrel" as Stephen J.
Gould defined it: "A spandrel is a phenotypic characteristic that
evolved as a side effect of a true adaptation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29
Religious behavior is a spandrel because it could be helpful to humans
and itself come under selection in cultural evolution.
drdach replies:
I confess I haven't read the God Delusion book. The title is too
repulsive for me to actually pay money for the book. However, from
your extensive quote from the book, I get the flavor of it.
Although, Dawkins may be correct about some religious fanatics who hold
various beliefs which are at odds with science and measurable
phenomenon etc., there are a vast number of scientists who are deeply
religious in the sense they live with a feeling that the creator is
always present in their daily activities. They do justly, love mercy
and walk humbly with their creator. And they feel that is all that is
required of them in life. This is not merely a delusion or by product
of evolutionary advantage for the phenotype. It is a deeply personal
very human experience which like all forms of perception or sporting
skills, requires training, mentoring, practice and dedication to
eventually reach a point of spontaneity and mastery. To people who
lack these perceptive skill, it all seems very enigmatic and
mysterious.
A comparison can be made with the viewer's perceptive ability to
understand abstract art. Once the figure or the portrait in the chaos
of the painting is pointed out, it becomes obvious. Same for the fact
that it is intuitively obvious (to some of us) that fractal patterns in
nature are the result of the intelligent designer or creator. This is
not intuitively obvious to Dawkins who would call it a delusion.
My reply is that he lacks the perceptive skill or never developed them.
This brings us to the question. How does one develop these skills
starting from scratch assuming a desire to do so? The development of
spatial ability in infants can be used as a starting point for
understanding the process of where we are starting from and where we
want to end up. This is a learned process which requires a teacher.
If there is no teacher, then there is no process.
I once heard a radio program in which they described an experiment
taking baby starlings birds away from their mothers. They never
learned to sing. Apparently the mothers are needed to teach this to
them. The animals have much to teach us and we have much to learn from
them and each other.
Regards from www.drdach.com
Lee Jay
So you need a teacher to teach you to feel or sense the supernatural.
I had many. I came from a religious family and, for most of my first
two decades, studied and tried hard to feel or sense what I was being
told was there ny my family and teachers. In the 3 1/2 decades since I
was born I have never felt or seen anything remotely supernatural - and
that's not for a lack of effort.
If I am god's creation, why did he create me without that sense for the
supernatural? Am I to be punished in the after-life for his screwup?
If so, doesn't that make god immoral?
Lee Jay
rupert....@gmail.com
default, you must be trying quite hard to confuse people.
Attribution fixed below.
drdach wrote:
> dkomo wrote:
> > It's often said that belief in supernatural agents such as those found
> > in the religions of the world is not a direct adaptation but a
> > *side-effect* of the way our minds work.
> >
> > But what exactly is a side-effect of evolution? Richard Dawkins in his
> > new book _The God Delusion_ offers a good example of such a side-effect:
>
> [snip by drqach]
> >
> > Now, apply the by-product lesson to religious behavior in humans. We
> > observe large numbers of people -- in many areas it amounts to 100
> > percent -- who hold beliefs that flatly contradict demonstrable
> > scientific facts as well as rival religions followed by others. On
> > this view, the propensity that was naturally selected in our ancestors
> > was not religion per se; it had some other benefit, and it only
> > incidentally manifests itself as religious behavior." _The God
> > Delusion_, p. 173-174
>
> > A question I have is, "is religious behavior a "spandrel" as Stephen J.
> > Gould defined it: "A spandrel is a phenotypic characteristic that
> > evolved as a side effect of a true adaptation."
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29
> >
> > Religious behavior is a spandrel because it could be helpful to humans
> > and itself come under selection in cultural evolution.
>
> drqach replies:
So Dawkins is being punished by god for being born to parents who
didn't know they were supposed to teach him to be religious?
>
> I once heard a radio program in which they described an experiment
> taking baby starlings birds away from their mothers. They never
> learned to sing. Apparently the mothers are needed to teach this to
> them. The animals have much to teach us and we have much to learn from
> them and each other.
>
> Regards from www.drqach.com
Nick Keighley
> dkomo wrote:
> > It's often said that belief in supernatural agents such as those found
> > in the religions of the world is not a direct adaptation but a
> > *side-effect* of the way our minds work.
> >
> > But what exactly is a side-effect of evolution? Richard Dawkins in his
> > new book _The God Delusion_ offers a good example of such a side-effect:
>
> dkomo continues:
>
> "Now, apply the by-product lesson to religious behavior in humans. We
> observe large numbers of people -- in many areas it amounts to 100
> percent -- who hold beliefs that flatly contradict demonstrable
> scientific facts as well as rival religions followed by others. On
> this view, the propensity that was naturally selected in our ancestors
> was not religion per se; it had some other benefit, and it only
> incidentally manifests itself as religious behavior." _The God
> Delusion_, p. 173-174
>
> A question I have is, "is religious behavior a "spandrel" as Stephen J.
> Gould defined it: "A spandrel is a phenotypic characteristic that
> evolved as a side effect of a true adaptation."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29
>
> Religious behavior is a spandrel because it could be helpful to humans
> and itself come under selection in cultural evolution.
>
> drdach replies:
why don't you quote in the normal manner?
> I confess I haven't read the God Delusion book. The title is too
> repulsive for me to actually pay money for the book.
cognitive dissonance. Its good to read stuff you disagree with.
> However, from
> your extensive quote from the book, I get the flavor of it.
>
> Although, Dawkins may be correct about some religious fanatics who hold
> various beliefs which are at odds with science and measurable
> phenomenon etc., there are a vast number of scientists who are deeply
> religious in the sense they live with a feeling that the creator is
> always present in their daily activities. They do justly, love mercy
> and walk humbly with their creator. And they feel that is all that is
> required of them in life. This is not merely a delusion or by product
> of evolutionary advantage for the phenotype. It is a deeply personal
> very human experience which like all forms of perception or sporting
> skills, requires training, mentoring, practice and dedication to
> eventually reach a point of spontaneity and mastery. To people who
> lack these perceptive skill, it all seems very enigmatic and
> mysterious.
>
> A comparison can be made with the viewer's perceptive ability to
> understand abstract art. Once the figure or the portrait in the chaos
> of the painting is pointed out, it becomes obvious. Same for the fact
> that it is intuitively obvious (to some of us) that fractal patterns in
> nature are the result of the intelligent designer or creator. This is
> not intuitively obvious to Dawkins who would call it a delusion.
>
> My reply is that he lacks the perceptive skill or never developed them.
in other words, anyone who doesn't agree with you is suffering from
a form of brain damage or developmental disorder.
Religious people can be so arrogant.
> This brings us to the question. How does one develop these skills
> starting from scratch assuming a desire to do so? The development of
> spatial ability in infants can be used as a starting point for
> understanding the process of where we are starting from and where we
> want to end up. This is a learned process which requires a teacher.
> If there is no teacher, then there is no process.
>
> I once heard a radio program in which they described an experiment
> taking baby starlings birds away from their mothers. They never
> learned to sing. Apparently the mothers are needed to teach this to
> them. The animals have much to teach us and we have much to learn from
> them and each other.
--
Nick Keighley
sharon
dkomo wrote:
> It's often said that belief in supernatural agents such as those found
> in the religions of the world is not a direct adaptation but a
> *side-effect* of the way our minds work.
>
> is not helpful to the moth. Religious behavior is a spandrel because it
> could be helpful to humans and itself come under selection in cultural
> evolution.
What about bad religion? Why people so easily believe in a devil and
demons, without ever actually seeing any?
I wonder if its a hangover from man's past, something imprinted
(similar to instinct) in the brain and mind, when wild animals would
come stalking in the night. Belief in evil, seems even comes natural.
Even the devil is portrayed as an animal, snake and dragon
He could appear in a multitude of animal shapes, most commonly a dog, a
serpent or a goat.... He also had ugly appearances: as the alleged god
of the witches, he was portrayed as half human, half animal, like Pan,
with horns, cloven feet, hairy legs, a tail, a huge penis, glowing eyes
and Saturnine features.
_The Encyclopedia of Witches and Witchcraft_, by Rosemary Guiley,
Facts On File Books, 1989; pp. 96-8.
Even the dead, there's fear associated with dead bodies and ghosts. I
wonder if it has anything to do with early man knowing a corpse could
be hazardous to your health (as in bacteria, before the microscope).
Do things like this get imprinted in the mind, are they instinctive
fears?
I like the way Quint describes sharks, it's got a demonic-like feel to
it. "Like a doll's eyes"..
Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss): You were on the Indianapolis?
Brody (Roy Scheider): What happened?
Quint: Japanese submarine slammed two torpedoes into our side, chief.
It was comin' back, from the island of Tinian Delady, just delivered
the bomb. The Hiroshima bomb. Eleven hundred men went into the water.
Vessel went down in twelve minutes. Didn't see the first shark for
about a half an hour. Tiger. Thirteen footer. You know, you know that
when you're in the water, chief? You tell by lookin' from the dorsal to
the tail. Well, we didn't know. `Cause our bomb mission had been so
secret, no distress signal had been sent. Huh huh. They didn't even
list us overdue for a week. Very first light, chief. The sharks come
cruisin'. So we formed ourselves into tight groups. You know it's...
kinda like `ol squares in battle like a, you see on a calendar, like
the battle of Waterloo. And the idea was, the shark would go for
nearest man and then he'd start poundin' and hollerin' and screamin'
and sometimes the shark would go away. Sometimes he wouldn't go away.
Sometimes that shark, he looks right into you. Right into your eyes.
You know the thing about a shark, he's got...lifeless eyes, black eyes,
like a doll's eye. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be livin'.
Until he bites ya and those black eyes roll over white. And then, ah
then you hear that terrible high pitch screamin' and the ocean turns
red and spite of all the poundin' and the hollerin' they all come in
and rip you to pieces.
Y'know by the end of that first dawn, lost a hundred men! I don't know
how many sharks, maybe a thousand! I don't know how many men, they
averaged six an hour. On Thursday mornin' chief, I bumped into a friend
of mine, Herbie Robinson from Cleveland. Baseball player, boson's mate.
I thought he was asleep, reached over to wake him up. Bobbed up and
down in the water, just like a kinda top. Up ended. Well... he'd been
bitten in half below the waist. Noon the fifth day, Mr. Hooper, a
Lockheed Ventura saw us, he swung in low and he saw us. He'd a young
pilot, a lot younger than Mr. Hooper, anyway he saw us and come in low.
And three hours later a big fat PBY comes down and start to pick us up.
You know that was the time I was most frightened? Waitin' for my turn.
I'll never put on a lifejacket again. So, eleven hundred men went in
the water, three hundred and sixteen men come out, the sharks ttook the
rest, June the 29, 1945. Anyway, we delivered the bomb.
http://www.whysanity.net/monos/jaws.html
dkomo
You're describing spirituality here. There's a big difference between
spirituality and religion. A religion is a set of beliefs about
supernatural agents. Spirituality is a higher state of consciousness
which is independent of any particular belief system. The spiritual or
mystical experience has been a presence in all religions over all
historical periods. In Eastern religions, it is *the* central
experience that one seeks.
It's so typical of a religion like Christianity which places overweening
importance on "faith", the belief in a god or gods in the absence of all
evidence, that it fails to distinguish between belief and spirituality.
For much more on this, see Ken Wilber's _The Marriage of Sense and
Sensibility_.
Keep in mind that Dawkins is specifically addressing the failings of
religion in his book. A belief in the nonexistent is usually not a good
thing. It's not a good thing to conduct one's life firmly convinced of
the actuality of a fantasy.
dkomo
> dkomo wrote:
>
>>It's often said that belief in supernatural agents such as those found
>>in the religions of the world is not a direct adaptation but a
>>*side-effect* of the way our minds work.
>>
>>So the moth's behavior around nearby lights is not a spandrel because it
>>is not helpful to the moth. Religious behavior is a spandrel because it
>>could be helpful to humans and itself come under selection in cultural
>>evolution.
>
>
> What about bad religion? Why people so easily believe in a devil and
> demons, without ever actually seeing any?
>
> I wonder if its a hangover from man's past, something imprinted
> (similar to instinct) in the brain and mind, when wild animals would
> come stalking in the night. Belief in evil, seems even comes natural.
> Even the devil is portrayed as an animal, snake and dragon
>
Good and bad religions are both a product of the same set of
psychological processes. Boyer in _Religion Explained_ explains in
detail what goes on in our minds when we do this. These productions are
side-effects of the way our minds classify things, animals/plants and
people in our world. This classifying was originally useful to our
survival, but has misfired and has led to our elaborate fantasies
involving supernatural agents, good and bad, moral and evil.
jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us
dkomo wrote:
> It's often said that belief in supernatural agents such as those found
> in the religions of the world is not a direct adaptation but a
> *side-effect* of the way our minds work.
Excuse me! An atheist has no business making judgement calls about the
supernatural, because they don't philosophically believe it exists. I
don't even believe it exists. If there are gods, they would be natural
entities, not supernatural entities (as if, that definition actually
meant anything). I'll give you Marvel Comic super heroes as being
supernatural (a.k.a. non-existent), but when you start from the premise
that belief in non-existent agents are found in the religions of the
world, your conclusion has to be biased.
The moon moves from East to West across the night sky. If you used it
for navigation, you'd end up going in circles. Moths would be
restrained to the region they were conceived in on a North/South
boundary and in an East/West range. Their migration to new food sources
would be so limited that their survival as a species would be
difficult, if not impossible. Dawkins is just dreaming up
rationalizations!
>
> _The God Delusion_, p. 173
>
>
> Ordinarily such a navigation system serves the moth well. The system is
> quite accurate as long as the light source is at infinity, and they can
> use the same system with reversed sign to return home after a foray.
> The problem arises when the moth flies past a light source that is close
> by, with its light rays diverging like the spokes of a wheel. As the
> moth attempts to keep a angle of 30 degrees to the light, it will have
> to keep turning its fly path, producing a spiral which steers it into
> the flame or electric light.
>
> Now Dawkins draws the analogy between religion and the moth:
>
> "Now, apply the by-product lesson to religious behavior in humans. We
> observe large numbers of people -- in many areas it amounts to 100
> percent -- who hold beliefs that flatly contradict demonstrable
> scientific facts as well as rival religions followed by others.
Typical atheist B.S. ! People contradicting each other is virtually
unresolvable. Put 500 atheists in a room and you'll get 500 opinions,
religion has nothing to do with it! That's just the way people are.
> People
> not only hold these beliefs with passionate certitude, but devote time
> and resources to costly activities that flow from holding them.
Like Dawkins should talk! He's a freaking atheist writing a book about
God, could anything be more delusional?
> They
> die for them, they kill for them. We marvel at this, just as we
> marveled at the 'self-immolation behavior' of the moths. Baffled, we
> ask why. But my point is that we may be asking the wrong question. The
> religious behavior may be a misfiring, an unfortunate by-product of an
> underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is or
> once was, useful.
Like what? We're not talking about fins evolving into legs, here. He's
bullshiting that some unknown thing evolved into some misunderstood
dementia. If that's the case, then why not some other unknown thing
evolved into God? It just as logically founded as Dawkins' B.S. !
> On this view, the propensity that was naturally
> selected in our ancestors was not religion per se; it had some other
> benefit, and it only incidentally manifests itself as religious behavior."
Can you spell D-E-N-I-A-L?
>
> _The God Delusion_, p. 173-174
>
>
> A question I have is, "is religious behavior and moth light-seeking
> malfunction a "spandrel" as Stephen J. Gould defined it:
>
> "A spandrel is a phenotypic characteristic that evolved as a side effect
> of a true adaptation."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29
>
> The article above doesn't make it clear that a spandrel, although a
> side-effect, becomes itself an adaptation. That is, it becomes useful
> to the organism and is subject to selection, as in the hacker's "misbug":
>
> "In computer programming, a misbug is an unexpected behaviour of a
> program that turns out to be useful."
>
> So the moth's behavior around nearby lights is not a spandrel because it
> is not helpful to the moth. Religious behavior is a spandrel because it
> could be helpful to humans and itself come under selection in cultural
> evolution.
If you're going to rationalize answers based on B.S., it really doesn't
matter. Usually, scientifically minded people prefer some evidence. If
we're using subjective truths as put forward in a book, there's this
book called "The Holy Bible".
JTG 11/7/06
rupert....@gmail.com
How large an area does it take to feed a moth? How far must a moth fly
in a night to find the food it needs to survive for 24 hours? How fast
does a moth fly? Do those numbers support your assertion that it is
impossible for a moth to fly in a circular path that takes it all night
to complete, yet allows it to find enough food?
>
> >
> > _The God Delusion_, p. 173
> >
> >
> > Ordinarily such a navigation system serves the moth well. The system is
> > quite accurate as long as the light source is at infinity, and they can
> > use the same system with reversed sign to return home after a foray.
> > The problem arises when the moth flies past a light source that is close
> > by, with its light rays diverging like the spokes of a wheel. As the
> > moth attempts to keep a angle of 30 degrees to the light, it will have
> > to keep turning its fly path, producing a spiral which steers it into
> > the flame or electric light.
> >
> > Now Dawkins draws the analogy between religion and the moth:
> >
> > "Now, apply the by-product lesson to religious behavior in humans. We
> > observe large numbers of people -- in many areas it amounts to 100
> > percent -- who hold beliefs that flatly contradict demonstrable
> > scientific facts as well as rival religions followed by others.
>
> Typical atheist B.S. ! People contradicting each other is virtually
> unresolvable. Put 500 atheists in a room and you'll get 500 opinions,
> religion has nothing to do with it! That's just the way people are.
Fair enough. But if those 500 people are all claiming that their
opinion is Absolute Truth, then at most one of them is right. I don't
know any atheists who claim to know the only right way for people to
live their lives, but almost every religion makes exactly that claim.
Since the claims are contradictory, at most one religion is the right
one. Which one, if any? 95% of all religous people belong to the same
religion as their parents.
>
> > People
> > not only hold these beliefs with passionate certitude, but devote time
> > and resources to costly activities that flow from holding them.
>
> Like Dawkins should talk! He's a freaking atheist writing a book about
> God, could anything be more delusional?
>
> > They
> > die for them, they kill for them. We marvel at this, just as we
> > marveled at the 'self-immolation behavior' of the moths. Baffled, we
> > ask why. But my point is that we may be asking the wrong question. The
> > religious behavior may be a misfiring, an unfortunate by-product of an
> > underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is or
> > once was, useful.
>
> Like what? We're not talking about fins evolving into legs, here. He's
> bullshiting that some unknown thing evolved into some misunderstood
> dementia. If that's the case, then why not some other unknown thing
> evolved into God? It just as logically founded as Dawkins' B.S. !
You've invented an entirely new category of entity, and made assertions
about its properties, with no evidence whatsoever. That's considerably
less well founded than speculation on the relationship between
spandrels (known to exist), the human tendency to religion (known to
exist), and mental illness (known to exist).
>
> > On this view, the propensity that was naturally
> > selected in our ancestors was not religion per se; it had some other
> > benefit, and it only incidentally manifests itself as religious behavior."
>
> Can you spell D-E-N-I-A-L?
Yes. Are you denying that it is you who are in denial?
dkomo
> dkomo wrote:
>
>>It's often said that belief in supernatural agents such as those found
>>in the religions of the world is not a direct adaptation but a
>>*side-effect* of the way our minds work.
>
>
> Excuse me! An atheist has no business making judgement calls about the
> supernatural, because they don't philosophically believe it exists.
Pardon me, but who better to judge schizophrenic delusions than a sane
person? The sane person doesn't hallucinate.
> don't even believe it exists. If there are gods, they would be natural
> entities, not supernatural entities (as if, that definition actually
> meant anything). I'll give you Marvel Comic super heroes as being
> supernatural (a.k.a. non-existent), but when you start from the premise
> that belief in non-existent agents are found in the religions of the
> world, your conclusion has to be biased.
>
Biased toward reality, yeah.
Well, Dawkins is a zoologist, so he isn't just making this stuff up
about the moth. Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moth
See the section "Attraction toward Light".
But whatever causes the moth's loopy behavior toward night lights, it
isn't an adaptation but a side-effect of an adaptation. Thus the
analogy with religion still holds.
>
>> _The God Delusion_, p. 173
>>
>>
>>Ordinarily such a navigation system serves the moth well. The system is
>>quite accurate as long as the light source is at infinity, and they can
>>use the same system with reversed sign to return home after a foray.
>>The problem arises when the moth flies past a light source that is close
>>by, with its light rays diverging like the spokes of a wheel. As the
>>moth attempts to keep a angle of 30 degrees to the light, it will have
>>to keep turning its fly path, producing a spiral which steers it into
>>the flame or electric light.
>>
>>Now Dawkins draws the analogy between religion and the moth:
>>
>>"Now, apply the by-product lesson to religious behavior in humans. We
>>observe large numbers of people -- in many areas it amounts to 100
>>percent -- who hold beliefs that flatly contradict demonstrable
>>scientific facts as well as rival religions followed by others.
>
>
> Typical atheist B.S. ! People contradicting each other is virtually
> unresolvable. Put 500 atheists in a room and you'll get 500 opinions,
> religion has nothing to do with it! That's just the way people are.
>
500 opinions on what? Politics? Sports? Or whether God exists? There
would only be one opinion on that one.
>
>>People
>>not only hold these beliefs with passionate certitude, but devote time
>>and resources to costly activities that flow from holding them.
>
>
> Like Dawkins should talk! He's a freaking atheist writing a book about
> God, could anything be more delusional?
>
He's a sane, intelligent guy analyzing loopy beliefs.
>
>>They
>>die for them, they kill for them. We marvel at this, just as we
>>marveled at the 'self-immolation behavior' of the moths. Baffled, we
>>ask why. But my point is that we may be asking the wrong question. The
>>religious behavior may be a misfiring, an unfortunate by-product of an
>>underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is or
>>once was, useful.
>
>
> Like what? We're not talking about fins evolving into legs, here. He's
> bullshiting that some unknown thing evolved into some misunderstood
> dementia. If that's the case, then why not some other unknown thing
> evolved into God? It just as logically founded as Dawkins' B.S. !
>
In Chapter 5, "Roots of Religion", Dawkins mainly reports on other
people's ideas regarding how religious and other supernatural beliefs
come about. I like his book, but I know that you are a down to earth
"ya gotta show *me*" kind of guy, so I would highly recommend you read
Pascal Boyer's _Religion Explained_. I've been touting that book on
t.o. for a few years.
Boyer's ideas on the origins of religion are empirically rooted in
cognitive science and experimental psychology. To study how the mind
operates at its ground level, you can study how young children develop
perceptions and ideas about the world around them, you can study how
people with brain disorders think, and you can perform careful
experiments in perception and cognition on groups of normal people.
Boyer shows how our brains have betrayed us when it comes to religion.
He offers the evidence that Dawkins bases his "Roots of Religion"
chapter on. You can take it from me, because I'm a trustworthy fellow,
that religious ideas are a result of the misfiring of our minds. They
are a side-effect of otherwise useful cognitive features, very much like
the crazy flight of moths around artificial lights are a side-effect or
by-product of an evolved and useful nocturnal navigation system.
>
>>On this view, the propensity that was naturally
>>selected in our ancestors was not religion per se; it had some other
>>benefit, and it only incidentally manifests itself as religious behavior."
>
>
> Can you spell D-E-N-I-A-L?
>
You can, so you are apparently quite familiar with the state.
>
>> _The God Delusion_, p. 173-174
>>
>>
>>A question I have is, "is religious behavior and moth light-seeking
>>malfunction a "spandrel" as Stephen J. Gould defined it:
>>
>>"A spandrel is a phenotypic characteristic that evolved as a side effect
>>of a true adaptation."
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29
>>
>>The article above doesn't make it clear that a spandrel, although a
>>side-effect, becomes itself an adaptation. That is, it becomes useful
>>to the organism and is subject to selection, as in the hacker's "misbug":
>>
>>"In computer programming, a misbug is an unexpected behaviour of a
>>program that turns out to be useful."
>>
>>So the moth's behavior around nearby lights is not a spandrel because it
>>is not helpful to the moth. Religious behavior is a spandrel because it
>>could be helpful to humans and itself come under selection in cultural
>>evolution.
>
>
> If you're going to rationalize answers based on B.S., it really doesn't
> matter. Usually, scientifically minded people prefer some evidence. If
> we're using subjective truths as put forward in a book, there's this
> book called "The Holy Bible".
>
As I said before, the "religion is a cognitive side-effect" theory has
good empirical support.