Eilonnwy mentioned what I was about to- Dawkins touches on this subject a little bit himself in Delusion. In the same chapter he also discusses how he doesn't really agree with group selection, which is kind of what you're getting at- "I have no idea how this contributes to spreading their genes."
I'll take a stab at this, though I have not really researched it much.
Leo's right, of course, that evolution did not have God as a goal in mind as humans were evolving. However, it would definitely make sense that the genes of a cohesive family would become more numerous than a family whose members didn't bother to help each other. So, if it was advantageous for a tribe (who share many similar genes) to share a common set of beliefs, the tendency to believe what the others in your group believe would be selected for. Of course, this is said in broad terms, and has many factors- as Eilonnwy points out, the fact that children (and adults, but formatively children) are very receptive to statements weighted with authority would certainly be one. It is also advantageous to understand that other people have minds as well. However, this ability to imagine others beyond the self can be appropriated by belief in a deity, spirit, etc. So that could be another factor of the selections for religion.
So back to how exactly a set of beliefs which, as you point out, seems to be against "rampant procreating" (excellent choice of words, btw) is able to spread and persist for so long? Well, if these evolved tendencies, such as believing what one is told, going with the group, etc, are in a sense taken over by religion, it is easy to see that religion could have been only a side-effect of other bits of human evolution. That said, could religion actually help a specific group survive?
I find myself wondering if that is even the right question. Perhaps it is important to consider that not only does the religion help the group survive, but does the group help the religion survive? Surely it is as important. After all, you can consider religion in an evolutionary context as well, can you not? Even now many facets of Christianity (as an example) are evolving away from the fire and brimstone speeches to a more docile stance. So, one must not look only at the benefits of being in a religious tribe, but also whether that religion has what it takes to survive.
So are there in fact benefits that stem from being religious? I think there must be, on a group level. You mentioned the procreation thing- how it's odd that a society could benefit from tenets which restrict mating. Well, I think that's really only in the priesthood (still taking christianity as an example) and fairly recent. I mean, you could have several wives and all that in the OT, could you not? However, there are numerous examples in the bible of killing the men of a rival group, and taking the women of that tribe. Sounds like a good way to spread a particular view. I'm sure there are other examples but all of a sudden my toes are freezing. Back in a bit.
I'll take a stab at this, though I have not really researched it much.
Leo's right, of course, that evolution did not have God as a goal in mind as humans were evolving. However, it would definitely make sense that the genes of a cohesive family would become more numerous than a family whose members didn't bother to help each other. So, if it was advantageous for a tribe (who share many similar genes) to share a common set of beliefs, the tendency to believe what the others in your group believe would be selected for. Of course, this is said in broad terms, and has many factors- as Eilonnwy points out, the fact that children (and adults, but formatively children) are very receptive to statements weighted with authority would certainly be one. It is also advantageous to understand that other people have minds as well. However, this ability to imagine others beyond the self can be appropriated by belief in a deity, spirit, etc. So that could be another factor of the selections for religion.
So back to how exactly a set of beliefs which, as you point out, seems to be against "rampant procreating" (excellent choice of words, btw) is able to spread and persist for so long? Well, if these evolved tendencies, such as believing what one is told, going with the group, etc, are in a sense taken over by religion, it is easy to see that religion could have been only a side-effect of other bits of human evolution. That said, could religion actually help a specific group survive?
I find myself wondering if that is even the right question. Perhaps it is important to consider that not only does the religion help the group survive, but does the group help the religion survive? Surely it is as important. After all, you can consider religion in an evolutionary context as well, can you not? Even now many facets of Christianity (as an example) are evolving away from the fire and brimstone speeches to a more docile stance. So, one must not look only at the benefits of being in a religious tribe, but also whether that religion has what it takes to survive.
So are there in fact benefits that stem from being religious? I think there must be, on a group level. You mentioned the procreation thing- how it's odd that a society could benefit from tenets which restrict mating. Well, I think that's really only in the priesthood (still taking christianity as an example) and fairly recent. I mean, you could have several wives and all that in the OT, could you not? However, there are numerous examples in the bible of killing the men of a rival group, and taking the women of that tribe. Sounds like a good way to spread a particular view. I'm sure there are other examples but all of a sudden my toes are freezing. Back in a bit.
