Hard questions, easy answers. Today: Are religions naturally evolved?

A while back, I asked myself (and a colleague): could it be that religion is the product of evolution? After all, there is abundant evidence that people(s) make god(s), while the evidence for the converse is, uhm, spotty to say the least... Neither he (nor I) were totally clear on the answer. But now I think the question falls into the "sounds harder than it is" category. This apparently hard question has an easy (i.e., intuitively plausible but also, I think, correct) answer: Religions seem to answer the big questions, such as "what's it all about" quite well.
An evolutionary and systems theory explanation: Once your control system ("brains") get big enough, self-consciousness and other complications arise. And then you rather naturally ask questions such as "why am I here", "where do I come from", and "what's it all about". Big brains => self-aware then self-consciousness => trouble. But religion delivers the reassuring answers: Relax, it's all good. You're here for a purpose. In fact, the whole darn universe is made for you (in some religions, anyways) -- even god (or his son) looks just like you!! (Carl Sagan calls this "the human conceit" and quibs "oh my -- what a coincidence" ...) Of course Darwin delivered a major narcisstic injury, explaining away the need for the sky-daddy (even if he didn't like this repercussion himself).

So this explains it: We (having evolved large brains and asking the "big questions") want comfort and reassurance that all is good. Religion caters to that need. So say we all.

Daniel Dennett also studies and explains religion as a natural phenomenon in Breaking the Spell. Turns out that the evolutionary argument for religion has also been evoked to ask: If religion evolved naturally, then it must be good for something, right? We don't just evolve characteristics for nothing. So what's the purpose of having evolved religion? Dennett points out that the flu also naturally evolved. What's it good for? It's good at being copied and spread. I think the same applies for religion, but we have these additional levels of explanation: it's good at providing answers, makes you feel good about yourself and the world (restrictions apply: some traits make you feel really bad, you immoral sinner! But that's another story...); it can also help group cohesion, channel ideas, organize masses, etc. But above all, it gives you answers!

Next time: Religion, genes, and memes: Cui bono?

All models are wrong, but some are useful. Sort of ...

George Box said:

All models are wrong, but some are useful.

To which I say:

All religions are wrong, but some are useful.

To which Richard Dawkins might add:

Useful yes, but for whom?

Sincerely Yours,
A Selfish Meme

Occam's Relativized Razor

Occam's razor favors simple explanations over complex ones, specifically, minimizing the number of assumptions necessary to explain a phenomenon. A catch is that when comparing the complexity of explanations, there might not be an obvious measure. What looks simple to some (God did it) might look complex to others (Which God? Where From? How?), and vice versa, i.e. what might look complex to some (details of adaptation, "irreducible complexity", chicken-and-egg, etc.) is in fact simple to explain for those in the know (e.g. those who understand how evolution through natural selection works). So while objectively natural explanations trump supernatural ones every time, very much in line with Occam's razor, the perceived complexity by individuals might yield a non-parsimonious outcome ("God did it") that's considered simple by the individual.

I was reminded of this when reading Jürgen Schmidhuber's Simple Algorithmic Principles of Discovery, Subjective Beauty, Selective Attention, Curiosity & Creativity:

According to our complexity-based theory of beauty [15, 17, 25], the agent's currently achieved compression performance corresponds to subjectively perceived beauty: among several sub-patterns classified as 'comparable' by a given observer, the subjectively most beautiful is the one with the simplest (shortest) description, given the observer's particular method for encoding and memorizing it.

Similarly, from the abstract:

I postulate that human or other intelligent agents function or should function as follows. They store all sensory observations as they come - the data is holy. At any time, given some agent's current coding capabilities, part of the data is compressible by a short and hopefully fast program / description / explanation / world model. In the agent's subjective eyes, such data is more regular and more "beautiful" than other data. It is well-known that knowledge of regularity and repeatability may improve the agent's ability to plan actions leading to external rewards. In absence of such rewards, however, known beauty is boring. Then "interestingness" becomes the first derivative of subjective beauty: as the learning agent improves its compression algorithm, formerly apparently random data parts become subjectively more regular and beautiful.

Science v.s. Religion, knowing to the best of our abilities v.s. believing against all reason: Which one thrives as we increase our knowledge and understanding of the world, and which one tries to preserve the "old ways" and needs "patching up" as real-word observations shake the man-made self-delusion?

HEAVEN

by Rupert Brooke, 1887-1915

FISH (fly-replete, in depth of June,
Dawdling away their wat'ry noon)
Ponder deep wisdom, dark or clear,
Each secret fishy hope or fear.

Fish say, they have their Stream and Pond;
But is there anything Beyond?
This life cannot be All, they swear,
For how unpleasant, if it were!

One may not doubt that, somehow, Good
Shall come of Water and of Mud;
And, sure, the reverent eye must see
A Purpose in Liquidity.

We darkly know, by Faith we cry,
The future is not Wholly Dry.
Mud unto mud! -- Death eddies near --
Not here the appointed End, not here!

But somewhere, beyond Space and Time.
Is wetter water, slimier slime!
And there (they trust) there swimmeth One
Who swam ere rivers were begun,

Immense, of fishy form and mind,
Squamous, omnipotent, and kind;
And under that Almighty Fin,
The littlest fish may enter in.

Oh! never fly conceals a hook,
Fish say, in the Eternal Brook,
But more than mundane weeds are there,
And mud, celestially fair;

Fat caterpillars drift around,
And Paradisal grubs are found;
Unfading moths, immortal flies,
And the worm that never dies.

And in that Heaven of all their wish,
There shall be no more land, say fish.

Gretchen-Frage (Inconvenient Question)

There is an idiom in German called "Gretchen-Frage". In a nutshell, posing a "Gretchen-Frage" ("Gretchen's Question") means to ask something crucial (for the questioner) and inconvenient (for the questioned), i.e., a question which the respondent might not like to answer directly. In addition to the inconvenience aspect, it is also implied, I think, that the question is "big". Let's see how it came about: In Goethe's Faust, the studied Dr. Faust, aided by Mephisto with whom he made a certain pact, falls in love with the much less studied, younger, conservative, innocent, catholic young woman called Margaret (aka "Gretchen"). Here is what she asks him:

MARGARET:
Promise me, Heinrich.

FAUST:
Whatever I can.

MARGARET:
How is it with your religion? Please admit--
Your certainly a very good man,
But I believe you don't think much of it.

FAUST:
Leave that my child. I love you, do not fear
And would give all for those whom I hold dear,
Would not rob anyone of church or creed.

MARGARET:
That is not enough, it is faith we need.

FAUST:
Do we?

MARGARET:
Oh that I had some influence!
You don't respect the holy sacraments.

FAUST:
I do respect them.

MARGARET:
But without desire.
The mass and confession you do not require.
Do you believe in God?

FAUST:
My darling who may say
I believe in God?
Ask priests and sages, their reply
Looks like sneers at mock and prod
The one who asked the question.

MARGARET:
Then you deny him there?

FAUST:
Do not mistake me, you who are so fair.
Him--who may name?
And who proclaim:
I believe in him?
Who may feel,
Who dare reveal
In words: I believe him not?
The All-Embracing,
The All-Sustaining,
Does he not embrace and sustain
You, me, himself?
Does not the heaven vault above?
Is the earth not firmly based down here?
And do not, friendly,
Eternal stars rise?
Do we not look into each other's eyes,
And all in you is surging
To your head and heart,
And weaves in timeless mystery,
Unseeable, yet seem, around you?
Then let it fill your heart entirely,
And when your rapture in this feeling is complete,
Call it then what you will,
Call it bliss! heart! love! God!
I do not have a name
For this. Feeling is all;
Names are but sound and smoke
Befogging heaven's blazes.

MARGARET:
Those are fair and noble phrases;
The priest says something, too, like what you spoke--
Only his words are not quite so--

FAUST:
Wherever you go,
All hearts under the heavenly day
Say it, each in its own way;
Why not I in mine?

MARGARET:
When one listens to you, one might incline
To let it pass--but I can't agree,
For you have no Christianity.

OK, so much for that :)
And here the same in the original German. If you please.

Der Tragoedie erster Teil

Marthens Garten

Margarete. Faust.

MARGARETE:
Versprich mir, Heinrich!

FAUST:
Was ich kann!

MARGARETE:
Nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?
Du bist ein herzlich guter Mann,
Allein ich glaub, du haeltst nicht viel davon.

FAUST:
Lass das, mein Kind! Du fuehlst, ich bin dir gut;
Fuer meine Lieben liess' ich Leib und Blut,
Will niemand sein Gefuehl und seine Kirche rauben.

MARGARETE:
Das ist nicht recht, man muss dran glauben.

FAUST:
Muss man?

MARGARETE:
Ach! wenn ich etwas auf dich konnte! Du ehrst auch nicht die heil'gen
Sakramente.

FAUST:
Ich ehre sie.

MARGARETE:
Doch ohne Verlangen. Zur Messe, zur Beichte bist du lange nicht gegangen.
Glaubst du an Gott?

FAUST:
Mein Liebchen, wer darf sagen: Ich glaub an Gott?
Magst Priester oder Weise fragen,
Und ihre Antwort scheint nur Spott
Ueber den Frager zu sein.

MARGARETE:
So glaubst du nicht?

FAUST:
Misshoer mich nicht, du holdes Angesicht!
Wer darf ihn nennen?
Und wer bekennen:
"Ich glaub ihn!"?
Wer empfinden,
Und sich unterwinden
Zu sagen: "Ich glaub ihn nicht!"?
Der Allumfasser,
Der Allerhalter,
Fasst und erhaelt er nicht
Dich, mich, sich selbst?
Woelbt sich der Himmel nicht da droben?
Liegt die Erde nicht hier unten fest?
Und steigen freundlich blickend
Ewige Sterne nicht herauf?
Schau ich nicht Aug in Auge dir,
Und draengt nicht alles
Nach Haupt und Herzen dir,
Und webt in ewigem Geheimnis
Unsichtbar sichtbar neben dir?
Erfuell davon dein Herz, so gross es ist,
Und wenn du ganz in dem Gefuehle selig bist,
Nenn es dann, wie du willst,
Nenn's Glueck! Herz! Liebe! Gott
Ich habe keinen Namen
Dafuer! Gefuehl ist alles;
Name ist Schall und Rauch,
Umnebelnd Himmelsglut.

MARGARETE:
Das ist alles recht schoen und gut;
Ungefaehr sagt das der Pfarrer auch,
Nur mit ein bisschen andern Worten.

FAUST:
Es sagen's allerorten
Alle Herzen unter dem himmlischen Tage,
Jedes in seiner Sprache;
Warum nicht ich in der meinen?

MARGARETE:
Wenn man's so hoert, moecht's leidlich scheinen,
Steht aber doch immer schief darum;
Denn du hast kein Christentum.

Dumbest Lies about Evolution. EVER.

... under the title "Evolution - For Skeptics, Cynics, and Believers Alike". What a bunch of clowns.
Or should the title of "worst lies about evolution" go to these guys?
This hurts my brain. A little "Mr. Deity" to the rescue! Episode 1 (Mr Deity and the Evil) is still the killer...
... a few minutes later ...
Ah.. feeling better already! Now a quick hop to Understanding Evolution and the world makes sense again!! Try for yourself ...