Metodologías de Software Cercanas a Proyectos FOSS

Beyond the explanations of the origins of religion already given, i.e. the ‘seeds’ as I’ve called them: security/solace, explanation, and cohesion/cooperation – there are other issues to tackle in answering the question whether religion is an adaptation. No doubt many finer grained definitions of adaptation can be given, but for simplicity’s sake, I will go with J.Z. Young, “Adaptation is a process of change to meet a particular existing condition in the environment.” (1971/1974, p 472) I have one quibble with this definition – I think it would be more apt to say ‘…to fit better…’ rather than “to meet.” Natural selection can be thought of as producing a resultant trait or behaviour which, for whatever reason and however slightly, enables an organism (or a population of organisms) to survive and have more offspring where others perish or have fewer offspring. I think it is ‘better’ to call this a ‘better fit.’

Better

Of the three stages of adjectives – ‘good,’ ‘better,’ ‘best’ – better is the one I like better, and is the most readily recognised or identified. What is good? Who knows. What is best? Who knows. But what is better? Almost anyone can at least hazard a reasonable guess, no matter what the contents or

circumstances are. And this is essentially what natural selection selects. It doesn’t have to be ‘good.’ It almost certainly is not ‘best.’ To be selected, a mutation, a deviation, some kind of variation only needs to be functionally and statistically better. Dennett says, “Natural selection occurs because a sum of events, of all sorts and sizes has a particular statistically describable outcome.” (1995, p 326) What is natural selection’s favourite song? “Anything you can do I can do better!” Evolution is mainly about

incremental change, although ‘hopeful monsters’ as they are called – where some giant or bizarre mutation occurs, although unlikely, cannot be ruled out. If they are better (i.e. fitter in this context),they could be expected to

We need just one further technical distinction before we tackle the big question about the adaptiveness of religious belief that heads this section. When a chance variation becomes fixed (spread throughout the population), and becomes a more or less permanent feature of the population through time, then this is what is meant by an adaptation. However, a key point to bear in mind, as discussed earlier in Chapter Two, is, that due to environmental changes, what was an adaptation may later prove not to be adaptive! This explains why organisms sometimes carry on with functionally useless traits or behaviours – features that once were, but no longer are,

adaptive. As long as such traits (or behaviours) aren’t very costly and don’t get too much in the way (like male nipples, or the appendix), they may remain with a species indefinitely.58

All researchers I have read who take the ‘outsider’ or naturalistic view agree that the pervasiveness and costliness of religion demands a thorough-going naturalistic and evolutionary explanation. Full-blown religion takes precious time and energy. The counter-intuitiveness59 of some of the ideas about hidden entities and agencies associated with it present a challenge to understanding unless it really does something for us. And, if we are not going to accept (i.e. ‘on faith’) its own account of its origins, a miraculous or supernatural account, then it had to come from somewhere,

and it has to do a lot of work for us.

Ever since religion has been looked at scientifically there has been no shortage of attempts to provide this kind of explanation.60 So here are my thoughts on the subject: We must first of all note that emotion, for its own good evolutionary reasons (which I won’t go into, but see Lewis et al. 2001, pp 37-66), has been around in the limbic

58

Note how readily we can imagine differing outcomes in the two examples I give: the male nipples might well go on forever, but the appendix, without the advantages of modern medicine, might well have been ‘de-selected’ out of the species due to frequency of its becoming infected. How likely mutants born without an appendix would be is another question, but perhaps even smaller and smaller ones would be favoured because they might be less likely to become infected, or less dangerous if they do.

59 _{As some wit has said, “faith is the magic ingredient that enables us to make ‘that wonderful}

leap from grim reality into the totally bloody ridiculous.’” (Morrison 1999/2003, p 254) On a more serious note, it is Scott Atran who emphasises that the counterintuitive and counterfactual belief in a factually impossible world of supernatural agents is a universal core aspect of religion, if not religiousness. (2002, p 5) This could be disputed, but it is beyond my scope here to do so explicitly. (However, see later discussion of byproduct/brain theory.)

60 _{As Richard Dawkins says, “Everybody has their own pet theory of where religion comes}

76 system of mammalian brains for a long time. ‘E-motion,’ suggests it is something about getting us moving – in motion. Lewis says, “In all cases, emotions are humanity’s motivator and its omnipresent guide.” (Lewis et al. 2001, p 36)

I think religion began with an emotional response to the world in which this probing animal, Homo, found itself – a world that was dangerous, puzzling, and so full of mysterious others. What emotions would these conditions be likely to evoke? I suggest – the emotions of fear, curiosity/wonder/puzzlement, and love/hate. If this is a reasonable supposition, it corresponds to the three ‘seeds’ – security/solace, explanation, and coherence/cooperation. (SSECCS) “Fear,” John Dewey said, “created the gods.” (1934/68, p 24) Clearly fear would spur us to ‘motion’ toward safety and security (the first seed). The emotions of curiosity and wonder lead us to an inner ‘motion’ – puzzling, to look for some anxiety-relieving, some cognitive dissonance-resolving, explanation. And love/hate would lead us to ‘motion’ toward, and protection of, the beloved, and away from the possibly dangerous ‘other.’

Religiousness is a collection of powerful feelings – perhaps also a faculty or sensibility that some people have more of than others. I believe there is a differential

need for whatever benefits are seen to accrue from religious feelings. I suspect another ‘layer’ of emotional response developed from the basic physical and social ones (SSECCS) already identified. These feelings include awe, reverence, and, arguably, an aesthetic sense. I speak here of a closely allied affective experience, being moved (e-motion), that can lend special warmth, depth, connection and a sense of being overwhelmed – i.e. ‘spiritual’ feelings. Just a reminder, I am not talking about the whole construct of institutional religion(s) here, but of the feelings which I suggest gave rise eventually to them. I am building on Dewey’s distinction, which I introduced previously, and suggesting that religiousness precedes religion.

I believe the emotional experiences of mystery, wonder, awe and beauty were the next stage in the evolution of religion. Perhaps, to continue the botanical metaphor, we could call them the ‘roots’ (as opposed to the ‘seeds’) of religion. However, this does not go to the ‘root’ of the Darwinian question. As Richard Dawkins says, “…we should ask what pressure or pressures exerted by natural selection favoured the impulse to religion.” (2006, p 163) We might well wonder how those religious feelings would lead to some kind of functional belief(s) that had survival value – for

this is the key and the basis of all evolutionary analysis. I don’t think anyone knows or ever will know for sure – such aspects of evolutionary development do not even leave bones, teeth or footprints. But with some judicious extrapolation from what we can see, and do know something about,61 we can attempt to put up plausible explanations. That is what I have tried to do in this section. Now let us look at some of the current theories in the literature.