In basic economic theory it is assumed that people will always act to maximize their own self interest. In 'The Selfish Gene', Richard Dawkins offered the alternative that instead we act to do what is in our gene's best interest, which does not always correspond to personal advancement. If by sacrificing ourselves we can increase the likelihood of survival of copies of our genes in others, then our own self interest can be trumped by our gene's self interest. And thus as a result, we may sacrifice ourselves for our children or our relatives or theoretically other members of our species with whom we share over 99% of our genes.

The evolutionary psychologists took a step back further and pointed out that we don't have a genetic maximization calculator in our heads. Instead we have a series of evolved mechanisms: specific tools which, under the conditions we evolved in, allowed us to maximize the survival of our genes. Those conditions have changed so radically in the past few millenia that those specific tools may no longer be applicable.

So for example, because we evolved under conditions where there were periods of food scarcity, we evolved a desire for food that is greater than our immediate need for food. This way we could store up fat reserves for times when there was less. We now live in a time when we have plenty of food, and thus our tendancy to overeat creates health problems for us. Foods that we were supposed to find especially tasty because of their rarity in our environment are now everywhere, and in larger doses they clog our arteries and raise our blood pressure.

In the same vein, religion can be seen as both a byproduct of mental mechanisms, and as a potential way to bypass some of those that are detrimental to functioning in modern society. In 'Religion Explained (2002)' Pascal Boyer claims that belief in the supernatural is linked to a mechanism in our minds that causes us to look for 'agents'. An agent is an organism that acts under its own willpower like an animal. Toddlers will pay special attention to objects on a screen that move like agents. The dangers of not recognizing an agent are more serious than recognizing something as an agent that is not one, so our minds are more prone to assume things are agents when they aren't. Thus, when someone becomes ill, our minds are more likely to accept that evil spirits did it. The agency explanation is our instinctive predisposition.

On the other hand, if we think of our emotional reactions and behaviors as survival mechanisms evolved in the Stone Age, then religion can possibly be seen as a way of short circuiting those primitive mechanisms to create societies that function better outside of Stone Age environments. In our increasingly interdependent society there may be a need for greater altruism. While our own Stone Age thinking mechanisms may cause us to steal, cheat, and focus much our energies towards sex or other physically pleasing activities, those same tendancies may in the long run be detrimental to the survival of our offspring and the offspring our kin. An imaginary afterlife, which provides rewards which are never realized, can make people engage in activities which might go counter to natural tendancies, but ultimately increase survival chances. If this is true, then religion has a value irrespective of the reality of its teachings.

(Actually, all of this entry except the last paragraph was written in early December, but I kept it private because I didn't have the energy at the time finalize it. After I finished up the 'Christ Dude' entry, it just seemed appropriate to have it side by side with this more distant, analytical entry.)