Evolutionary psychologists who are antitheists

Bradamante

Am I the only one who thinks someone who studies the evolution of human behavior could reasonably be expected to know things related to evolution and human behavior? Things like:

• Spiritual and religious behaviors such as burying the dead date back as early as the first H. Sapiens, perhaps even earlier
• People who practice religion live longer and feel happier
• Belief in God may be partially genetic

There is scientific evidence that the human psyche is naturally inclined to practice some form of religion, spirituality, or belief in the supernatural, and that this helps the people who are so inclined to stay psychologically healthy.

So why so many evolutionary psychologists who are antitheists? Doesn't that require them to ignore the facts of their own field? Or maybe they're just too busy using evopsych to argue that women secretly want to be raped to take a minute to argue an actually sane conclusion.

Malkavian

Evopsych makes them feel intelligent.

Being firmly anti-religion makes them feel intelligent.

/armchair psychology.

You're looking at the logic of an agitator. 

MillerCross

Wrong thread.

Anyway, is this where I point out that Evopsych is bad and you should feel bad?

Schitzo

What is evopsych and why is it the work of the devil, as the internet would like me to believe?

MillerCross

It's the idea that many of our psychological traits come from evolution and our caveman behaviour or whatever.

The problem is that it's a very untested set of theories and one that barely can be tested and or experimented, if possible at all and...well, as this image puts it...

Schitzo

In other words: Every fucking Cracked article in the history of fucking ever.

MillerCross

Yup

Also, it bears mentioning that understanding the nature of religion being in our genes (God, I wanna puke for writing this) does not mean that we're subjected to said nature.

oh, and antitheism does not mean dislike for religion. Just dislike for deism.

Gelzo

Burying the dead doesn't seem like something that needs to be religiously motivated. Let's say you're in prehistoric times and a family member dies from an illness. You can:

A. Leave the corpse somewhere near your dwelling. You watch it rot slowly as days go by, the blank face of your loved one slowly deteriorates, and wears heavily on your morale and that of others. The air becomes thick with the smell, attracting unwelcome scavengers or hungry predators. The illness may even spread to others.

B. Leave it somewhere far enough from your dwelling so that you don't have to look at it. This requires you to be in contact with the diseased corpse for the duration of the trip, possibly attracting predators.

C. Get some use out of the body. Maybe cannibalize it or use the body parts for materials for tools. This is probably a great way to increase your chances of getting sick, reduce your morale further if you have what we would consider a normal sense of empathy, and possibly make you unpopular in the community.

D. Bury that shit. This requires minimal contact with the body, and doesn't require you to travel very far.

Bastion

OP: There is certainly a neurological basis for the transcendental experiences associated with mysticism and spirituality, and evidence that those experiences are healthy. But it's important not to conflate religion with that experience just because there's a correlation between those experiences and religion. Sociologically speaking, religions start out as the attempt to give meaning to those experiences, to put them in a framework where they can be interpreted and communicated to others. Once that happens, the initial impulse and the institution that grows out of it will always be separated to some degree, greater or lesser.

The institution is not beyond criticism--it has benefits and drawbacks, depending on the forms it takes--nor should it be. (For that matter, neither is the initial impulse--transcendental experiences have a pretty good chance of, essentially, leading to insanity.) And considering how critical religious institutions are of evolution, it's odd to be surprised that they'd return the favor.

It's the idea that many of our psychological traits come from evolution and our caveman behaviour or whatever.

The problem is that it's a very untested set of theories and one that barely can be tested andor experimented, if possible at all and...well, as this image puts it...

Right. It tends to work backwards from what we already know, so it doesn't have a lot of predictive value. What makes it so controversial is that people tend to invoke it to give the appearance of scientific legitimacy to sexist or racist opinions.

AHR

While there are probably indeed some genetics things that explain human behavior, the stuff it says really doesn't go beyond "Interesting Fact Filler"

Once you try to apply it, you tend to come off as smug, as well as the fact you become very hard to argue against, and not in a good way.

Mostly because much like psychology and sociology, there is never any 1 answer, and you can't treat one subject as gospel.

glennmagusharvey

For what it's worth, elephants also have rites honoring the dead, including the dead of species other than their own.

AHR

Haven't they tried to bury sleeping people before?

Gelzo

Cause of death: Buried by elephant.

Bastion

"Tap: Add 1 to your mana pool.

Tap: Choose one--regenerate target elephant; or destroy target tapped creature and it can't be regenerated."

Gelzo

Puns referencing old MTG phrasings are best puns.