User talk:Muntuwandi/The evolutionary origins of religion

I have created this article "evolutionary origins of religion. Though there will be controversy over the article that was deleted a few months ago, I believe that this article has gone sufficient transformation to merit an independent review difference between older version and new version. I have created this in line with wikipedia guideline No. 5 which states that articles can be recreated if evidence of notability is found. For example I have added an additional subsection discussing the concepts of Evolutionary psychology which some editors had complained was missing from the article. I have also created the full article on Evolutionary psychology of religion which is another interesting topic. Because this is new content , I believe if there are any disputes then they should go for review, either by a fresh article for deletion proposal, and let the editors again decide on notability.Muntuwandi (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition User:Dbachmann has expressed that the article is valid User_talk:Dbachmann#origin_of_religion and so has User:Bruceanthro as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthropology#Evolution_and_the_origin_of_religion. Muntuwandi (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you take Dab's advice and think on it yourself. The thing to do is to keep the content in your user space and work with editors willing to consider the project until a reasonable solution is found and then create an entry. The thing not to do is to delete information about religion in the Paleolithic from a page on Prehistoric religion, simply because you think all such information belongs in a page of your creation. The other thing not to do is to keep on renaming and recreating deleted content prior to working with other editors as suggested above. This page should be deleted and you should think seriously about working with the content, and with editors interested in 1) finding an appropriate entry title for this material and 2) editing the content to reflect the appropriate title. You keep on saying that you work well with other editors but I've seen no attempts to engage the ideas of others in this entire fiasco.PelleSmith (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I should also note that I would be happy to engage in such a discussion. For instance, I would suggest that the current entry is workable if the material under the headings "Paleolithic," "Neolithic religions," and "Timeline" are removed from the entry and the rest of the content is developed along the lines of the notable theories representing the type of work described by each subheading. Some of these subheadings may also need to be renamed--for instance "abstract thinking" might just be titled "behavioral modernity." My reasoning here, is as always, that the later material I am suggesting we remove only evidences religious, proto-religious, or religious like behavior in the paleolithic and/or neolithic. This material does present any, or even the logical space for any, actual theories of the evolutionary origins of religion. Where this type of information becomes important to such theories it could be mentioned along with said theories. By maintaining an expanded and thorough entry on the evidence of religion in prehistory one would also have a good complementary resource for an entry that deals with theories drawing in part from such evidence. I know you probably wont like the idea of getting rid of the portion of this entry that comprises most of the original content you posted in Origin of religion, but that's my opinion (and that goes to one of the problems of the original entry). I also maintain that the proper way to do this is to keep this entry in your space until you've been able to work with other editors to achieve a truly different entry that is workable--appropriately named and structured to utilize content that accurately reflects that name. So I still say, for now, that we need to delete this entry and work with the materials in your space, since that is the only solution that is respectful of the processes that have already engaged much of this content and deleted it.PelleSmith (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the concept of sitting down and waiting, if you recall after the AFD, I stayed away from this issue for two months, and guess what, nobody showed any of the interest that they claimed they were going to do Dbachmann even complained about how everyone immediately lost interest after claiming they were going to work on the article. I am available to provide instant solutions to problems, I don't need to sit and wait for other editors who don't have the time or energy to dedicate to this issue.

I have proposed a disambiguation page such as Origin of religion (disambiguation) that can direct readers to the appropriate articles. This will help so that we have related information in one article and we avoid have information duplicated in several articles. It also would help to clearly define the content of specific articles instead of randomly assigning content. Religion is a broad topic so we need concise definitions of what each article should comprise of. Muntuwandi (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As Dbachmann pointed out, there is no need to mix theological arguments with evolutionary arguments in the same article. So this disambiguation page can clearly define the various arguments. Muntuwandi (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Disciplinary narrowness

Hi Muntuwandi. this is a thoughtful essay on an interesting topic. Are you thinking of turning it into an article? if so I would like to share some concerns with you. They hinge on this sentence: "There is general agreement among cognitive scientists that religion is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved early in human history." I have a specific and a general comment. Specific comment: I think you are mixing up three very different kinds of scholars: evolutionary scientists like Gould, and evolutionary psychologists like Steven Pinker, and popularizers like Richard Dawkins. I see the sense in doing this, as all of these scholars take the theory of evolution seriously and have written about religion. But sensible though this grouping seems I have serious concerns because (1) these three kinds of scholars are more different than one might think and (2) other scholars get excluded, whi might belong.

To explain where I am coming from - I admit to a bias that you may just reject out of hand, it is your page and i want to come clean - let me refer to what I see as an analogous case: arguments by psychologists in the matter of Race and intelligence. Psychologists measure demonstrable differences in IQ scores, and they propose an evolutionary or genetic mechanims to explain it. Similarly, here we have some people who have observed an empirical fact (maybe) - namely, that every society has religion (in fact this is a contested fact as it hinges on how exactly one defines religion) and then proposes a genetic or evolutionary explanation. My problem with the Race and intelligence gang is that the evolutionary mechanims is being proposed by psychologists who have NO training and who have conducted NO research in genetics or human evolution.

I'll go further - and for now I am still talking about race and intelligence, just because it helps me explain my point more clearly. I think the psychologists who appeal to genetics do not understand genetics or the theory of evolution. When someone criticizes them, they often respond that it is "the theory of evolution" that is being criticized, and they frame the argument as science 9them0 versus anti-science 9or "political correctness). This rhetorical move deeply disturbs me since i do not think they really understand the theory of evolution. I do not think that they are really defending science, or their critics are rejecting science.

No to bring it back to religion. The cognitive scientists you mention leave out a lot of people who I think have more expertise on the matter than some of the people I think you are referring to. i am referring to some physical anthropologists like Terrence Deacon, and to all social and cultural anthropologists who study religion. By leaving out thse scientists, we end up with an oversimplified argument. By the way, i do not intend to blame you, I think that you have accurately summarized how many people especially in the popular media present these debates and it is they whom i am criticizing.

First, by relying for one side of the debate psychologists who know nothing about evolution, or about human evolution specifically, you end up with an argument that cloaks itself in the language of science yet which has NO scientific evidence, namely, that human evolution led to the evolution of religion-specific brain architecture. in fact, there is no evidence for this religion-specific brain architecture, nor that evolution selected for it.

Second, by leaving out all the cultural anthropologists and other (physical) anthropologists you are left with a distorted oversimplification of the "other side,' that the evolution of religion was an accident. (in fact, in evolutionary theory all mutations are accidents, and the only question is whether they are positive, negative, or neutral).

I would say that the other side is this: there is no specifically "religion architecture" in the brain. What there IS in the brain is the architecture for culture; this architecture involves primarily a hard-wiring for symbolic thinking combined with a powerful memory. The consequence is that much of what defines humans is not genetic but learned and learned through complex social interactions. The evolution of culture like the evolution of opposable thumbs was the result of accidental mutations, but nevertheless positive mutations that nature selected for. It is positive because it enabled language, tool use, and complex social relations that together have enabled us to occupy virtually every niche on earth. It is culture, and only culture, which needs to be explained by genetics and evolution 9and it is easily explained by evolution and genetics and there is a host of research on just this). "Religion" is not an "accident" but it is an aspect of culture that developed as a byproduct of culture. And since all known societies have something that cone can define as religion, it is resonable to infer that religion serves important functions (i.e. is positive rather than negative), even if it has no direct genetic basis.

here is the simplest evidence that religion evolved culturally rather than biologically:" we know that biological evolution takes a long time (if we were to identify "race" solely with skin color, it takes about 20,000 years for races to evolve. It took thousands of years for most other biological traits to evolve. yet religion evolves very very quickly - just Christianity has evolved into many forms in the past 500 years. Given how fast religion evolves, it makes much more sense that it is cultural, not biological.

What are the functions of religion? Why has it evolved in the wasy it has, meaning, why does it take the formes it does? Most anthropologists would say that the answers to these questions have to so with culture, society, and history. And in fact there is a vast amount of research on just this. I am pretty sure Gould valued this research and di not think religion an "accident," he just thought it was cultural in nature rather than biological.

And opularizers like Richard Dawkins and psychologists like Stephen Pinker ignore all this research on religion. Which in fact is very bad science.

So, just my two cents. Iapologize if any of what I wrote sounds overly aggressive or patronizing, it just seemed that there was a major view that your essay was ignoring. best, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)