Evolutionary Reason For God

[Jefferson]

One theory for the evolutionary reason for God is man's solitude. They always picture prehistoric man in complete darkness on the grasslands of Africa looking up at the night sky. This has always felt far fetched or at the least incomplete.

At one time or another we will find ourselves alone reaching out for help beyond our capabilities. If the problem lies within the reasoning of the mind you cannot escape it. Einstein said "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them". Could this be a reason man evolved the way he did, creating a being presumably outside of ourselves. An all knowing, all poweful being needed for survival.
God is hardwired into our brains. We have evolved the capability for visions and spiritual experience. The need for Gods guidance is at times life or death. Does this not fall directly into the realm of natural selection? Or is this God spot put there by a higher power?

[Busby]

I think Jefferson that this, of all possibilities to explain the mystery of life, is the one that will prove to be near(er) to the real truth. There are those of us who think (among other possibilities) that the energy we call god is in fact an energy cohabitating and guiding within the efforts of evolution. Evolution may prove to not be as blind as is said. There is something we cannot or maybe cannot yet see.
And yes, those first Earth dwellers, looking up at the night sky (something we no longer see without a great effort) just had to allow their minds to conceive a watchmaker. They had no other choice. They knew less than we do now and we know nothing.
Leaving aside all belief systems and the hardwiring as you call it then we see Einstein was right. We have to think differently if we are ever going to have even the remotest idea of 'things'. When we look around us we see a whole cacophony of creation, so multifaceted that we realise we are completely lost. And yet we know there are only two things: mind and matter.
These are the factors as I see it which create our world - known otherwise as the universe.
It's a fascinating thought and makes a wonderful launching pad for any further discussions or discoveries.

[Jefferson]

It may be at the roots of creation. Random potential is fertile ground, within it is infinite possibility. It can happen in gene switching and plays a part in the electrons wave potential.

That vast emptiness may have given us better instincts. I could only imagine how it felt to have that type of silence and darkness. We could feel the heartbeat of the earth. As men we approach spirituality different than any other creatures on earth. I don't see it as much of a stretch that it was closer to the surface. Our spirituality instinctual nature. Man becomes disconnected when he confuses individual experience for the template.

Originally Posted by Busby

I think Jefferson that this, of all possibilities to explain the mystery of life, is the one that will prove to be near(er) to the real truth. There are those of us who think (among other possibilities) that the energy we call god is in fact an energy cohabitating and guiding within the efforts of evolution. Evolution may prove to not be as blind as is said. There is something we cannot or maybe cannot yet see.
And yes, those first Earth dwellers, looking up at the night sky (something we no longer see without a great effort) just had to allow their minds to conceive a watchmaker. They had no other choice. They knew less than we do now and we know nothing.
Leaving aside all belief systems and the hardwiring as you call it then we see Einstein was right. We have to think differently if we are ever going to have even the remotest idea of 'things'. When we look around us we see a whole cacophony of creation, so multifaceted that we realise we are completely lost. And yet we know there are only two things: mind and matter.
These are the factors as I see it which create our world - known otherwise as the universe.
It's a fascinating thought and makes a wonderful launching pad for any further discussions or discoveries.

One can make an evolutionary case for God or religion in a number of ways. Take two different religions for example. One teaches that God is all powerful and in control of everything in your life, you must appease this God or you will suffer, and only we can help you appease God. The second teaches about a God who is more nebulous, who loves you and wants the best for you, but understands that you must be free to live your life and learn from your mistakes. This God does not really require anything from you and you don’t really need our religion to appease it. The first religion preaches the essential nature of its dogma and itself for salvation from suffering. The second does not preach its own necessity, offers a nebulous dogma, and offers no material advantages to the adherent. Which is more likely to hang around in the long run? This is a simplified case, but the point is that religions are not created equal, some fight harder for their own existence than others, over time, natural selection selects for the strongest and the fittest.

Even in the absence of competition with other religions, evolution will occur. Any ideology can be thought to as a group or “pool” of beliefs. Over time, those beliefs that are more beneficial to the overall survival of that ideology will be selected for, while those that detract will tend to drop out. What we see is that the composition of ideologies of any sort will evolve on their own, even absent a coordinated conscious effort to steer them (which of course there often is as well). Religions, like all ideologies, come as many different species, most of which have failed to evolve fast enough and are now extinct or endangered. The ones we see now are the ones that survived. And of course, new ones are breaking off and evolving into separate species of ideology all the time.

Originally Posted by Jefferson

One theory for the evolutionary reason for God is man's solitude. They always picture prehistoric man in complete darkness on the grasslands of Africa looking up at the night sky. This has always felt far fetched or at the least incomplete.

At one time or another we will find ourselves alone reaching out for help beyond our capabilities. If the problem lies within the reasoning of the mind you cannot escape it. Einstein said "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them". Could this be a reason man evolved the way he did, creating a being presumably outside of ourselves. An all knowing, all poweful being needed for survival.
God is hardwired into our brains. We have evolved the capability for visions and spiritual experience. The need for Gods guidance is at times life or death. Does this not fall directly into the realm of natural selection? Or is this God spot put there by a higher power?

For all but the most recent evolutionary history of the human species, even with its big juicy fat and protein rich brains, the human was no match for its predators on a mano a mano/beast basis. However, as a coordinated front, those pathetic rock tipped sticks could prove to be a formidable threat that the lion, tiger, and bear soon learned to steer clear of. While as an individual, a human was a relatively low risk snack, as a group, tribe, ot society humans were a significant threat to any predator that dared to pose a challenge. So belonging to a society becomes an important survival advantage, and of course one cannot have a society without the cohesive forces and rules that hold it together. Some of that cohesive force can come from earthly rulers, but no matter how hard they tried to portray themselves as gods, they got wet when it rained, and rotted away when they died, just like anybody else. True gods need to be above all this human frailty, they must wield real power over the fates of men, they must be immortal. Rules set by kings, queens, and emperors, were to be taken seriously and obayed… at least when anyone who might tell was looking. But an invisible king, who is always watching, whose rules for the behavior of mankind must be obeyed or eternal punishment could be expected, now that is cohesive force for a society. So one can see how the social animal aspect of the human species could result in a certain hardwired tendency toward believing in religions as this could result in greater cohesivity of societies.

Of course this hardwired religious tendency is a double edged sword, though perhaps the other cut is beneficial as well. That strong cohesivity that a common religion can achieve helped to turn the frail humans into top apex predators themselves. As an apex predator species, they must provide the majority of their own population control or they will exhaust their environments ability to sustain them and drive themselves to extinction. This is commonly done by splintering into packs and killing each other. The same religious genes that can provide a cohesive force when a small society is faced with an external threat, can heighten the urgency of the infighting when the external threat is removed and provide a context for division and a holy cause for going to war with each other. So religion provided both a survival advantage to the individual through more cohesive societies, and a survival advantage to the species in terms a moral rationale for population culling when things got a bit too crowded. So far so good. What could go wrong?

In the modern age we find two major threats to the continued existence of the human species. Our societies have advanced our technical prowess to the point where our phenomenal success at staying alive has resulted in humans putting an unsustainable pressure on our environment and we are now well into the sixth great extinction event. We are rapidly destroying the ecosystems ability to support us. Whether and for how long our technology can continue to keep us in front of our own extinction is unknown. At the same time, that technical prowess has increased our ability to kill each other in ways that were previously only available to Gods. Ways so frightening that we have so far avoided using them as our population continues to soar. If and when out technology starts losing the race to keep our soaring population sustained in an ever diminishing natural environment, the pressure to splinter and kill will soar as well. The ending of this story is still uncertain (as far as we know), and the suspense leading up to it is pretty intense, it's one heck of a nail biter.

That same hardwired DNA that allows us to believe in and obey things we cannot see, to deny the facts in front of us and instead believe that which our leaders are telling us, that proved an asset in the past, is perhaps the same one that keeps us standing on the tracks believing everything will work out fine as the train barrels toward us. Over 99% of all species that have ever walked the planet have since gone extinct. But then extinction is only a big deal from the standpoint of the individual species going extinct. From the standpoint of the ecosystem it is just a set back, as long as there is something left alive to work with, it will bounce back and evolve new species to populate the planet once again… no big deal, this is how nature works.

[7luminaries]

That same hardwired DNA that allows us to believe in and obey things we cannot see, to deny the facts in front of us and instead believe that which our leaders are telling us, that proved an asset in the past, is perhaps the same one that keeps us standing on the tracks believing everything will work out fine as the train barrels toward us

Ketzer, hello there.
DNA is in fact extremely malleable and there is no hard line between impacts (even cross-generationally) of emotion and culture and environment of physical outcomes.

The real obstacle is believing that what we are is limited or defined by physical outcomes. I won't say "by DNA" because that statement contains too many predications and assumptions in one direction, typically. As if the physical is the driver. It is in fact the ongoing outcome of all that sustains it, primarily consciousness and spirit...including all our intentions and our thoughts. Physical reality exists and our bodies have material substance...but these are ever changing are are not cast in stone by any set default.

Our forms simply emerge from local materiality with some very basic aspects and tendencies (more or less), with all the fine details being ours to craft. Absolutely, we can learn how to take conscious choices both as a rule and in each moment which do not reflexively align with fear-based tribalism and aggression. This awareness and increasingly true freedom emerges from habitual engagement, centreing, and reflection, with oneself and with others. Done both as individuals and collectively.

IMO it's very important to realise this. Yes, you may have instincts, which if freely indulged may have outcomes which you realise are or would be violent, coercive, or oppressive, etc. But you also have self-awareness, and the ability to centre and be and do in alignment with your centre. By alignment with your centre, I mean being and doing whilst centred in authentic love -- lovingkindness and equanimity. To live from the heart-led consciousness, with awakened mind in service to heart.

From this perspective, the OP's question may be viewed entirely differently, or rather, the understanding you may bring to it will be informed by a heart-led perspective.
And the importance of the struggle and of taking difficult decisions based on authentic love comes into focus, whilst seeking to better manifest the nuanced balance of lovingkindness and equanimity. IMO as we grow and evolve, it is in these "duties of the heart", ultimately, in which we resonate with centre -- and thus with What Is -- most truly.

Peace & blessings
7L