The New York Times magazine had a fascinating, thought-provoking piece on the evolutionary advantages of belief.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/ma...olution.t.html

Turns out that some scientists have been studying religion from an evolutionary perspective, trying to figure out why religion is universal when it is seemingly maladaptive to survival: usually, believing in nonmaterial things and expending energy on nonproductive pursuits will make it harder to survive, not easier.

First the science, then my two cents.

The science is split into two camps. There's the "byproduct" school, which says religion is not in itself an evolutionary advantage, but is a byproduct of a complex and imaginative brain that is. Then there's the "adaptionist" school, which argues that religious belief is in fact advantageous by promoting trust and cooperation within a group.

The byproduct folks have some fascinating bits of data to work with. Their main ones are three recognized human traits:

Agent detection: The ability to infer the presence of organisms that intend to harm us. If we see motion out of the corner of our eye, our mind tends to assume it is a potential hostile organism and react accordingly. We assume the motion is guided by a mind rather than assuming benign causes like wind blowing leaves around. This makes evolutionary sense: If we're wrong about it being hostile, we're still alive. If we're wrong about it being benign, we're dead or injured. But it predisposes us to see intelligent agents behind every observed phenomenon.

Causal reasoning: The ability to "impose a narrative" on seemingly unrelated events. I tend to describe this as "pattern detection", the ability to see patterns even where none exists. Again, this is evolutionarily advantageous: it helps us solve puzzles and figure out cause and effect even with scant evidence, and is largely harmless when applied incorrectly. But it, too, predisposes us to see order and causation where there is none.

Theory of mind: This is simply the recognition that other people have their own viewpoint and do not know everything we know; it's the ability to imagine yourself in other people's heads. It lets us anticipate the actions of other people based on our knowledge of their knowledge. The survival advantage is obvious. The link to religion is a little more complex. Experiments show that children do not develop "theory of mind" until they are 4 years old or so. Until then, they believe others -- and especially their parents -- are omniscient. In other words, we are born believing in omniscient, invisible minds, which paves the way for a belief in God.

Then come the adaptationists. They argue that while the byproduct school might help explain some of the biochemistry of belief, belief itself is also favored by evolution. Some of my thoughts on altruism closely reflect adaptationist arguments. Religion can make people feel better by worrying less about death, letting them focus on living and the future. By reinforcing desirable behavior, it helps them attract better mates. It makes groups more cohesive, allowing them to outcompete nonreligious groups. It makes individuals more willing to sacrifice themselves, again increasing the survivability of the group. Such advantages outweigh the evolutionary costs of religion, which is measured in the time and resources devoted to ritual.

Adaptationists also note that this doesn't have to be an either-or thing. All species contain a range of various traits: height, strength, speed, disease resistance, etc. Why should belief be any different? In that view, theists and atheists aren't enemies; they represent a socially healthy mix. "What seems to be an adversarial relationship between theists and atheists within a community is really a division of cognitive labor that keeps social groups as a whole on an even keel," to quote the article's paraphrase of David Sloan Wilson.

Me, I don't see the two schools as necessarily being in conflict. Humans are social creatures by design, and the idea that we're wired to view the world in a certain way makes sense. Further, anything that promotes social cooperation is evolutionarily advantageous. Religion is an effective tool to that end, so it's easy to see why it would be so ubiquitous.

I would add that belief is advantageous for a reason not cited in the article: because it gives us a sense of control. Early humans were surrounded by deadly things they didn't understand. That could be debilitating to a mind imaginative enough to envision all the horrible things that could happen. But if we think we know why lightning strikes or earthquakes happen or people die, then we can develop rituals and practices to control or appease them. If we think we know what the stars are, we can use them to store our hopes and dreams. Belief is just one more tool to help us order our surroundings, giving us a framework that lets us live our lives more successfully by explaining away the unexplainable.

Believers may be offended by this whole discussion, as if God can be reduced to a particular brain structure or random chance. But that's not necessarily the case. Knowing the mechanism by which humans experience God does not prove God doesn't actually exist. To quote Justin Barrett, a prominent member of the byproduct school and a practicing Christian:

This is a variation of "evolution is the tool by which God created humans" argument. And it works just as well. We believe because God gave us the ability to believe when He created us.

Anyway, it's a fascinating article, far more interesting than I can do justice to here. Give it a read before it disappears behind the Times Select wall.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

Initially all tools for survival are by-products, so of course the to ideas are not mutually exclusive.
I tend to think that the by-product theories are more true insofar as religion is hardwired. That's because the elements of religion that help people to survive depend heavily on the environment, thus the differences in religions.
Most of the things that are considered advantageous about religion are more arguments for basic human social adaptations: cohesiveness, etc. They do not require religion to work, merely socialization. What seperates religion from other types of behavior is the emphasis on the supernatural and on ritual (which in a way is kind of a primitive "science").
The other elements that are considered to be useful of religion or at least were in a more dangerous time seem more true of tribalism... And such developments aren't necessarily beneficial today.
I tend to go with Stark's exchange theories about religious social evolution. Religion is most beneficial in how it aids the individual. So the main thing I agree with the adaptationists on is that religion does help us to stop worrying about things that are unexplainable and get on to more immediate concerns. Of course in modern times we have plenty of time to contemplate the mysteries of the universe.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

It would also seem that religion does best when it has some control of sexuality, and therefore piggybacks itself on evolution, much like a virus. As only those who follow the religion are able to mate. Therefore more genes for "faith" (or good pretending to have faith) get passed on.

When different religions meet with each other they have a built in desire to dominate the area and remove the followers of the competing religion (those that don't tend to die out, or go into hiding) to make sure only their followers get to mate and pass on the religion.

__________________
http://www.arts-fine.co.uk

That has not always been the case. Just look to West African pagan religions. They are very open to incorporating new gods and new rituals as they see fit. They also could care less if you worship their gods... provided your actions do not irk the gods enough to cause problems.
The monotheistic control religions are a fairly new phenomenon and their evolution seems to me more like government and other institutions- like pure social evolution.
People do not inherit religion through genes but through socialization. And over time they change the religions to suit the changes in the environment.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

What I meant by gene inheritance was more to do with a gene that may gives a tendancy towards conforming with your parental belief, being reinforced because those who fail to conform would be ostracized from the group and therefore have less chance for having children. So only those with a tendancy to conform would mate. (this is effect may be being slightly diluted by the easy of travel and communication)

This would give a self reinforcing loop that made religious followers have more children and pass on a gene for conformity along with an idea to conform to and the idea is their religion (no specifically one religion)

As you say the early religions were inclusive and tended to mix when they met but a you would still be ostracized if you didn't conform to your local belief system. Once the monotheism predator religions started to eat the other religions. (christianity steals from more then just Judaism, but also Isis, mithras and bits and pieces of a great number of other pagans gods) The battle of which god to follow truly took off, and accelerated the evolution of religion.

If you look at christianity and Islam now, they are both vastly different from how they were even 100 years ago. But the gene for following religions (or conformity) is still passed on along with an idea to conform to.

__________________
http://www.arts-fine.co.uk