Can religion and be explained in terms of evolution?
People are in competition. Part of game is to cheat. Cheaters often win, but cheat too often and you get a bad reputation and start to lose. In game theory, those who lie or cheat all the time fare poorly compared to those who cheat rarely, especially if they cheat only when the stakes are high. Religion allows people to cheat within a structure that says "you are theoretically perfect, it's just the devil makes you sin." People who believe this have a conscious mind that believes they are perfect and they have a subconscious that knows when and how often to cheat. This ability to believe you are perfect while still able to believeabley lie and cheat strategically is a terrific evolutionary advantage.
Ken多次提到的所谓的“明显目的”是什么?你凭什么认为我们有目标?如果有，那是什么?

你的节目提到达尔文的遗产包括将进化的思想扩展到基因和生物学以外的领域。
Human biological and cultural evolution have given rise to modern societies which are entirely dependent on technology. Does technology itself adapt and grow through an evolutionary process?
一本新书在达尔文的精神中考虑了这个想法。《技术的本质:它是什么以及它是如何发展的》，作者是布莱恩·亚瑟，斯坦福大学、圣达菲研究所和施乐帕克研究中心的著名经济学家。
In a nutshell, Arthur concludes that technology does indeed evolve in the sense that primitive technologies give rise to more complex ones. But the mechanisms are quite distinct from those of biological evolution, largely because human cognition is involved, and human needs provide directed purpose that behaves differently from the simple survival imperative of biological evolution.
在不同的基质下，进化可以采取不同的形式，这是非常值得的。进化论的总体理论将包括物种的进化、文化的进化、技术的进化、社会的进化等。每个人都会与他人分享某些方面，但也会带来自己独特的模式和现象。

While this is off topic from the discussion at hand (and thank you for hosting this discussion on your always interesting radio show), I do think it's important to remember that Darwin is not the "inventor" or "creator" of the theory of evolution. That theory had existed for a long time before Darwin, but lacked a solid scientific base to unify the various observations and data.
As far as the theory of natural selection goes, he isn't really the sole originator of that either. Wallace deserves a lot of the credit for that. Between his voyage on the Beagle and the publication of On the Origin of Species, Darwin was assembling data from animal husbandry to show the subtle steps of species change. He wasn't writing about the Galapagos or using that as a basis to establish his theory until Alfred Russel Wallace sent him and essay about his observations of species variations in Indonesia.
I wrote a longer blog post about that here, if you're interested:
http://colinfrangos.com/blog/2009/02/on-the-origin-of-on-the-origin-of-s...
I don't want to sell Darwin short or overstate Wallace's importance, and I realize this might come across as pointless nitpicking, but I do think it's important to understand that this profound idea had many parents and a long period of development. While the simple narrative of Beagle-to-Origin does get the main points of the theory across, I think knowing the details results in a richer history.
A tangent, but one that I think is worthwhile.

How does dennett manage to justify dogmatically using memetics in his literature as if memes hadn't been debunked scientifically?
Why use terms like conciousness-raising given their propagnda-like sound?
Why say on edge that ALL dawkins was saying was that religious people had cause some bad things, as if dawkins hadnt also been implying a connection between terrorism and religion despite the scientific evidence against this?
does dennett find many people think he is intellectually dishonest, even in spite of all his foot-stamping about being so intellectually honest?

Danielle, I have to say that I found that comment pretty absurd.
1. Dennett doesn't justify dogmatically using memetics in his literature because, as far as he's concerned, memes haven't been scientifically debunked. The conceptualization presented by Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976) is still relevant to modern evolutionary study today, and the understanding of memes as method of transferable, translatable information (while far from concrete, which is really a part of my personal frustration with the concept) is incredibly important to studies of consciousness.
2. "Consciousness-raising" sounds propaganda-like? That seems silly and unjustified. At worst, the term is bland, rhetorical and useless (and it probably is all of those things), but hardly characteristic of propaganda.
3. Apart from the fact that there is a necessary connection between religion and many institutions present in terrorism (though the potential for secular terrorism certainly exists and has been manifested throughout history), you seem to miss the point of the argument produced by Dawkins and (later) Harris altogether. The argument is that unquestioning commitment to any ideological structure is dangerous, and the opposition to dogmatism must be an internalization of the Socratic virtue, which entails inquiry, humility and a demand for the logical presentation of meta-theories and compliant data.
4. I'm not sure what Dennett finds or doesn't find. I suppose he should speak to that. I will say that his presentation of a critical analysis of consciousness (both in Consciousness Explained and, later, Sweet Dreams), while certainly not the best I've come across, is one of the most introspective and self-critical analysis of consciousness I've come across.
I'm glad Professor Dennett will be appearing on the show. Certainly a wonderful philosopher in his understanding of this particular issue, despite the generally controversial nature of many of his other philosophical issues. Should be a great show.

我很高兴你觉得我的评论相当荒谬。
1. At the very least, the theory of memes has not played out well and has little to no explanatory insight. Dennett seems to be the only one that isn't aware of this situation. Frankly, whenever he gets around to defending his reliance on the theory, it's rather embarrassing. I'd love to know how he expects those of us persuaded by the other camp to be swayed by what appears to be merely his insistence to wait a little longer. Personally, I think the theory can be made to explain anything, and thus its abuses in some recent literature.
2. I understand why he uses the term consciousness-raising, but the term sounds like propaganda given that it often appears to be used to make positions seem more desirable while selectively providing information on a topic. At the best the term is bland, rhetorical, and useless- so why use it so often, particularly in Dawkins case?
3. As far as I'm aware the only firm studies of religion and terrorism present strong evidence that there is no correlation between religion and terrorism. The slight of hand to suggest that Dennett, and Harris, are merely talking about dogma is lame. There is no indication that the sort of people they uphold, including themselves, as questioning, rational actors are any more, on average, than other people, religious or otherwise, to question or be rational. Given my survey, I don't find religious people to be any more dogmatic, less questioning, or less rational than anyone else.
In the case of the edge piece I was referring to, Dennett claims Dawkins is *only* making a casual list of some negative things religion has caused. I find this claim to be disengenious; clearly Dawkins is making a scientific claim about a correlation between extreme violence of a political nature and religious conviction. This correlation can be tested (and has been), yet Dennett seems more interested in letting Dawkins' statement work more as propaganda then as real science.
4. My question, seriously, is if Dennett finds that other people, people who don't find his claims about evolution and the mind to be controversial at all, just feel that he is being intellectually dishonest often. I think I remember David Sloan Wilson (not my favorite person in the world, but...) accusing Dennett and some others of bad science- even of lying at one of the Beyond Belief conferences. Does Dennett find that this happens to him often?
I'm also glad Dennett will be on the show. A good deal of his work has greatly helped me in advancing my own projects. I agree with him in large parts, very large parts. But I really just can't help but feel that he's sometimes being blatantly manipulative and dishonest- hopefully I'm wrong on this claim, but I fear more and more that I'm not.
Either way, I'm sure the show will be enjoyable.

1. The application of the concept to cultural phenomena does seem to get a bit excessive, but I suppose I'm having a hard time seeing what you see as so terribly controversial about the concept. There may be an argument that the definition of what a "meme" is covers too much ground to really be useful, but the concept of an infrastructure and evolutionary process for information seems incredibly useful, and helpful in understanding the progression of cultural phenomena throughout history.
2. I don't think he should use the term. I think we agree on that one. I was just making a point that it's not really a propaganda-based term, just a benign (if irritating) rhetorical devise.
3. I'm almost sure that we're not going to agree on what it means to be a "religious" person, but I'll most past that for a moment. Harris' claim in the End of Faith is one that the internalization of religion demands a suspension of reason, and that the suspension of reason, in any degree, is dangerous.
I'd like to see the studies you're referring to, personally, as they sound fascinating, but I think that it is clear that an exceedingly high percentage of active terrorists become involved for religious reasons. Whatever someone like Dinesh D'Souza may say about the Tigers of Tamil Elam, we're still talking about organizations that are advocating a religious cause as the primary motivator both in recruiting and in performing acts of violence.
4. I'll work very hard to avoid speaking for Professor Dennett, but it seems apparent that everyone, on both sides of that table, get attacked for intellectual dishonesty at some point. I'd like to hear what he has to say on that point.

我真的很喜欢这场演出。周日开车时我碰巧开着收音机，周二吃午饭时我又听了一遍。我本想打电话问个问题，但又担心自己表达不清楚。我在这里试着这么做。
我是一名计算机开发人员，主要致力于实现统计模型，利用类似人群的历史结果来预测结果。这涉及到通常所说的“数据挖掘”。因为我已经在这方面工作了大约十年，我开始有点担心它会如何改变我们的决策过程。在我看来，这些变化类似于以自然选择为假设，而不是以智慧设计论或神创论为我们形而上学的模型所发生的变化。这种差异的基本性质是在决策过程中缺乏因果关系。用节目开始的例子来说，岛上比绿甲虫活得更久的棕色甲虫并不是它们生存的原因。他们没有抬头看鸟，并对自己说:“看起来鸟看绿色比看棕色好。”为了物种的生存，我们最好制定一些优生育种计划，开始逐步淘汰我们的绿色后代。”但这是上帝为我们安排的。我认为这种差异是最令人不安的方面，人们不能接受自然选择作为我们的起源。 We are pretty fond of our tie to causality and think of it as the gauge of our intelligence, success, bravery, (insert positive human characteristic of your choice). I would go so far as to say that the discovery of causes is what defines intelligence. If we can explain, "Why," we understand something. Natural selection does not rely on causal intellect at all, so, if it explains the nature of things better than our causal concepts, it is a grave threat. It means that our entire knowledge base, which is based upon a library of these "theories of cause" is suspect.
The whole basis of the syllogism is not supported by the decision making done in natural selection. Everything in a sense becomes a sort of market basket analysis. Brown beetles, higher survival rates, Green beetles, lower survival rates. But immediately Ken said, or seemed to imply, "That's because the birds see ..." With the logic of natural selection there is no, "That's because..." There are only things that happen colinearly, and we are so wedded to the idea of causality, that it is almost impossible for us to think of the outcome without trying to presuppose its cause.
I'm sort of worried that, as computers continue to make more decisions for us using this non-causal logic(?) ( which books you get shown in Amazon, which movies on Netflix, ...), we will get into feedback loops that may be a disdvantage to diversity. And it may lead us into a state that we would not have wanted to be in if we had proactively chosen our direction. In a sense everything will become pulp, based on the path of the most common outcomes. We may have not been created by God, but we may want to act more like our best concept of god ( the angels of our better nature) in what we create.
好吧，随着时间的流逝，我变得越来越迟钝了，所以我就停在这里，但我想听到更多关于智能设计过程和随机决策之间的价值差异，以及选择其中一个的含义的想法。
I tried my best, but I'm sure a lot of it is just babbling.
Mark

I think that one of you, Stanford Professors, should address the views of Fodor who questions natural selection, but not the fact of evolution. As I understand him he has two criticisms of natural selection, accuses it of being
1) Unfalsifiabile tautologoy of the kind: Those fittest survive. Those who survive are the fittest ("They have must been doing something right to last so many years").
2) Metaphor, because only living organisms select (not nature).
Also why do writers on natural selection use so many metaphors, which do not always seem at first sight very well translatable or explainable away.

Correction:
Sorry for many misspellings, I have some other urgent job to do, but this discussion is important, so I had to join in
One important correction
Instead of
"Metaphor, because only living organisms select (not nature)".
it should be
"Metaphor, because only conscious organisms select (not nature)".
Marek Witkowski
Warsaw

达尔文的进化论对社会主义、社会学、优生学、犯罪学、精神病学等方面的影响含糊不清，但却具有实质意义。据说，达尔文的著作通过解剖、传教和帝国主义，将动物、“灵魂”和“落后的民族”从灭绝、诅咒和野蛮中拯救了出来。科学的“进步”和随之而来的教条主义——新的世俗宗教——应该被理解为一种结构，一种新形成的事物，正如福柯所说的“一种新的统治”。因此，与其教条地争论，不如让我们这样看待它，并谈论它的科学价值;让我们对它进行活体解剖，找出它占主导地位的区域，并像切除癌症一样切除这些区域。

JStein: "I'd like to see the studies you're referring to, personally, as they sound fascinating, but I think that it is clear that an exceedingly high percentage of active terrorists become involved for religious reasons."
See this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/opinion/18pape.html
and this:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SOlnH3f_dXwC

Evolution is nothing but a creation theory of intelligent design.
在这一点上，科学等同于宗教。
Call it; quantum faith.
=
MJA
PS: The only person who can truly tell the past is the same person who can tell the future, and fortunately there is no such person. Fortunate because that simple truth should guide us to now, or what truly and most importantly is.

Just because you can write a long comment doesn't mean it is a good comment. The only philosophical legacy of Charles Darwin is that you can learn everything (and I mean everything) through your own observations. This is all anyone needs to know.

The Darwin stuff is pretty interesting, do you reckon it sits opposite buddhism's karma idea? Or do they work together?
在《鲍勃与生命的意义》一书中，我得到了另外5个不同寻常的观点。你同意他们的回答吗?
http://bobversus.com/archives/432

A man who dares to waste one hour of life has not discovered the value of life. - Charles Darwin
Great quotes, Great thoughts, Great Man

达尔文关于他自己的发现的理论和假设，以及黑格尔的哲学，源于并极大地促进了文明和物种进化的线性进程的广泛信仰。
It is, for instance, difficult for us to entertain nostaliga for past conditions without suspecting ourselves of having fallen prey to some sort of regressive tendency.
Likewise, we think of the past as something "used up", which must be "left behind", while we, almost instinctively, associate the future with progress.
Ultimately, this has done us tremendous harm.
We refuse to take objective stock of our situation in history, being assured, by the likes of Charles Darwin and his school, that there was never a more conscious time than now.
The reality, in fact, is that a child born into the world today has perhaps more to learn from the Early Bronze Age Minaon civilization on Crete than from all of our contemporary industrial societies put together.
"The ideal of Morality has no more dangerous rival than the ideal of highest Strength, of most powerful life; which also has been named (very falsely as it was there meant) the ideal of poetic greatness. It is the maximum of the savage; and has, in these times, gained, precisely among the greatest weaklings, very many proselytes. By this ideal, man becomes a Beast-Spirit, a Mixture; whose brutal wit has, for weaklings, a brutal power of attraction."
~ Novalis

"We refuse to take objective stock of our situation in history, being assured, by the likes of Charles Darwin and his school, that there was never a more conscious time than now."
If you point me to where Charles Darwin said this, I would be enlightened.
更重要的是，认为自然选择意味着今天存在的东西比以前存在的东西更好，这是一种谬论。适者生存的概念很简单，就是那些最能适应当前环境的物种能够繁殖，从而繁殖出更多的“适者生存”。如果你认识到环境是非静态的，那么你也必须认识到适者生存的理想也在变化。因此，这并不意味着时间和进步之间存在任何联系，比如力量/智力。
因此，没有办法从自然选择理论证明我们比我们的任何前辈更有意识。
如果这就是你所说的“更有意识”(聪明?我必须不同意你的结论。
Furthermore, you state it as if it's obvious that we have "more to learn from the Early Bronze Age Minaon civilization on Crete than from all of our contemporary industrial societies put together." Consider me ignorant, if you and will, and explain exactly in what ways do we have more to learn from them, because I just don't see your claim as obvious. Is it morally, scientifically, etc.?

我不想浪费时间谈论达尔文，耶稣基督为你而死!醒醒吧，他爱你，他会给你快乐和平静，这是疯狂的。是的，人类是聪明的，他们会编造一些在某种程度上有意义的理论，我承认这一点，但科学只能到此为止。“你在哪里哪里当我奠定了地球的基础?”告诉我，如果你明白的话。谁划定了它的尺寸?你一定知道!”(工作38 4 - 5)。来吧，伙计们，告诉我关于宇宙创造的一切，哦，等等，你不能，你可以，嗯?你只有一个理论，达尔文先生!医生不能告诉你关于人体的一切，但耶稣创造了奇迹，医生们都被绊倒了。 yes god gives us knowledge about our bodies and science, but we must except the fact we are never going to know all lifes answers.Come on just ask jesus into your heart, u may not feel anything right away but you will begin to feel his presence, ur sins keep u apart from him. im not brainwashed, i just love Jesus.=] Repent. he loves u. if u dont believe me ask him urself, sounds stupid but its not. God Bless. hes coming sooner than we think. stop looking for answers in all the wrong places we have a manual(the bible).

God gives us knowledge about our bodies and science, but we must except the fact we are never going to know all the answers.

God bless Darwin