Talk:Evolutionary origin of religion/Archive 1

Archive 1

previous version

I've compared this article with the version deleted at afd in 2007. It seems to have been substantially reorganized and rewritten, and better referenced. I think it is possibly sufficiently improved to require afd for another deletion. I've removed t he speedy tag, for it does not in my opinion come within G4, repost. DGG (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Suitable content from this entry should be merged with Origin of religion as was suggested to the problem editor several times over many months before he pushed it so far as to get banned and then to engage in sock puppetry. G5 also applies here. I'm not suggesting to cut good content, but the manner in which User:Muntuwandi has been going about this should not be rewarded. Someone should put this in user space and merge the good content with Origin of religion (and under whatever entry name is most suitable). That's the last I'm going to deal with any of this other than notifying DGG of this post.PelleSmith (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic sections

I don't believe that the Evolution of the brain and Tool use sections are not sufficiently connected to the subject to merit inclusion in this article. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 02:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That may be so, but the sources used seem to think they are sufficiently connected

• page 15 onwards
• Religion

Wapondaponda (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As written, the passages are rambling and unfocused and, as I said, not sufficiently connected to the subject to merit inclusion in this article. If they can't be written to demonstrate their relevance as seperate sections, no number of supporting references matter, they should be removed, and the one relevant sentence that summarises each section should be incorporated elsewhere in the article. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 13:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger

I would suggest the contents of this article be merged with origin of religion.Wapondaponda (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you try working with the editors of that article by proposing some changes on the talk page? Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 13:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Burial of The Dead

In this section it is stated that humans are unique in their treatment of the dead. The citation listed for this claim contrasicts it by giving a link ot a description of elephant "funerals". I'm eliminateing the statemen, but keeping the citation. 24.160.242.185 (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionary origin, considered as a theory

I'm thinking of moving the article to Evolutionary theory of the origin of religions, since there are multiple ideas about how religion came into being. Not all scholars and not all "reliable sources" are atheists or methodological naturalists. I think we need to make room for the idea that (as many believe) God exists and He created one or more religions.

We should at least mention the latter idea, as an opposing point of view. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The article could be titled "origin of religion" in which case we could provide space for non-evolutionary theories on the origin of religion. However there is an article creation myths that specifically deals with non-scientific theories on the origin of religions. Though there is a long standing controversy on creation myths, regarding whether the term "creation myths" is neutral, since billions of people believe some of these creation myths to be true. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I just now discovered that there used to be an article with the more general title of Origin of religion, but after two afd votes it was deleted - i.e., permanently redirected here.

I think this makes it difficult to provide an unbiased treatment of the two main theories on the origin of religion:

1. the religious or Creationist view, i.e., that (a) God exists and (b) God created various religions; versus,
2. the atheistic or "scientific" view, i.e., that people simply invented religion on their own

As the democratic processes of Wikipedia slowly move it toward representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views on this topic that have been published by reliable sources, it will eventually require less negotiation to accomplish and begin to be expected as a matter of course (see WP:NPOV). Until then, of course, I won't edit war about this but merely gently suggest that we go ahead and get and early start. ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider Origin of AIDS or Origin of water on Earth (just two examples). These are not titled Biological theory of the origin of AIDS or Astronomical theory of the origin of water on Earth. I have not read the old version of Origin of religion (which is now a redirect to here), nor the AfD discussion, but a quick glance suggests that it was felt that the old article contained synthesis, and a couple of claims of POV fork were made. There is an inbetween page at Development of religion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The study of the origin of religion is a new and emerging field. It is an offshoot of evolutionary psychology which is also one of the fastest growing disciplines. There is an article Evolution as theory and fact, if evolution is considered factual, then any observed human phenomenon has an evolutionary origin. Phenomena such as why we smile when we are happy, the tendency to put our hands in our pockets, why we believe in supernatural beings would have some evolutionary origin. If evolution is considered as a fact then origin of religion and evolutionary origin of religion are one and the same. If we are open to considering non-evolutionary theories then origin of religion will suffice. This link Evolutionary Religious Studies: A New Field of Scientific Inquiry, includes resources that demonstrate how other academics are treating the subject. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

neocortex VS self-consciousness

"The neocortex is responsible for self consciousness, [...] "

Although the above statement is intriguing to be believe and would be helpful link between biology and religion, I'm not sure if it makes any sense from a neuroscientific perspective. Actually, I think it doesn't, though being that I'm not certain about it, I will not delete it and instead ask you to provide a helpful source that shows me wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wawawemn (talk • contribs) 16:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Source?

I am looking for a consensus of verifiable authority that the present article title is valid, neutral, notable and widely accepted. Anybody help? Redheylin (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolute Statements

These statements are presented as fact, when in truth, they are theory. What if we just used the words theory, hypothesis and conjecture in key places, say, the first sentence. 96.25.31.89 (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, statements such as "this part of the brain is responsible for behavior x..." should read "this part of the brain is associated with behavior x..." No one has shown that biochemical activity is cause. That's just opinion. 96.25.31.89 (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Prehistoric anthropology is necessarily an exercise in conjecture. There are numerous examples within this artricle of absolute statements explaining data which can only be tenuously interpreted. There is a desparate need to apply Occam's Razor to this article. At the very least give citations of published and peer-reviewed anthropologists who hold these postions. Would the original author(s) please clean this up? As it it stands, the article would be better off deleted than to stand as is. 24.160.242.185 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. Try User:Wapondaponda, User:Frowanda, User:Shashamula or any other number of User:Muntuwandi's current and active sock puppets if you want the closest thing to "original author(s)". You're better off just editing the entry on your own even if your edits end up being reverted by the sock master and "owner" of the entry. Best of luck.PelleSmith (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This articles states nothing about animals with ceromonial acts for there deceased like elephants. It mentions the need of knowing the self and group. But doesn't mention anything about thier relations with the dead.

New section on Religiosity as an outcome of disrupted childmother bonding

I agree with Mann jess: this material is interesting, but it needs a better reference. And the proposed text was too long and detailed, the theory should be summarized more concisely.--Gautier lebon (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Relation to Killer Apes

I see that the following has been added "This would allow religion to be used as a powerful survival mechanism, particularly in facilitating the evolution of hierarchies of warriors, which if true, may be why many modern religions tend to promote fertility and [[family|kinship]". But I don't see a citation for it. Is this Original Research and/or Syntheses, which are not permitted in Wikipedia?--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Beta males dominate and turn the alpha male in their brain into a god

As groups of humans become bigger the alpha male cannot dominate over all of the people and so the beta males parcel out power amongst themselves and eventually the alpha male becomes a myth which is where the gods come from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.45.35 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Very bad wording

"... that the period in between 80,000–60,000 years after humans retreated from the Levant to Africa ..."

I don't even know what this means. Before Present? ... with a missing comma? Make it comprehensible or I'll delete it  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.123.54 (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure enough: Some pretentious Wikipedia twit reverted my edit request WITHOUT EVEN NOTICING THAT THE SENTENCE FLAGGED IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE. I'm sure ALL THEY CVOULD GRASP WAS THAT i HADN'T BOTHERED TO LOG IN :-) Try again, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.123.222 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 29 May 2015

Please be civil and there is no need for shouting. And please log in and correct the part that you perceive as incomprehensible. Vsmith (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Tweaked a bit after looking at the reference - hopefully better now. Vsmith (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"Please be civil and there is no need for shouting" -- Oh, I'm all for civility but the assininity of the thoughtless revert, followed by more reflection when I followed-up in all-caps suggests that ALL-CAPS was indeed helpful after all! So thanks for fixing the incomprehensible sentence. (I figured that was what was meant.) Was I wrong to flag the error? Did I need to first find the boilerplate diction that the in-with-the-in-crowd Wikiers would find acceptable? I've tried to be a helpful Wiki editor in the past; the sort of thoughtless and unhelpful revert we witnessed here is one reason that I, and several other experts I know, have abandoned Wiki editing.

Proposed merge with Urreligion

side topic from the main article Shrikanthv (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

there is a case for disambiguation here, but Urreligion as intended here is a non-mainstream hypothesis from German Romanticism, and not a "side topic" of the evolutionary origins of religion. If anything, it is "anti-Darwinist", inasmuch as a German in 1810 could even be anti-Darwinist (a generation before Darwinism even became a thing). --dab (𒁳) 10:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Evolutionary origin of religions. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://anthropology.tamu.edu/faculty/alvard/ANTH689%20Fall%202005/Week%2011/Dunbar%202003.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)